Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:28:00 GMT
Message-ID: <AvCog.3433$>

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>>Thanks, I was looking for this information. You see, what
>>I did was usefull finally !-)

> If you haven't yet read D&E, please consider it. It really
> is interesting and very well written. Stroustrup is quite a
> writer in my opinion.
>>I never said C++ didn't borrow from Simula. You obviously
>>missed the following line, which was :
>>Did I claim the contrary ?

> Ok, I misunderstood your purpose.
>>What bother me here is not about OO being born from needs
>>for simulation - FWIW, at least part of Bob's assertion
>>seems perfectly and obviously true:
>>"(OO) is a computational model comprising a collection of
>>features useful for constructing large unpredictable state
>>machines from small predictable state machines"

> Ok, we agree this seems perfectly true. I also think the
> /unpredictable/ is acute.
>>The second part is yet a bit more loaded :
>>"or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
>>for what seemed expedient at the time."
>>Now if you browse this thread, you find another version of
>>Bob's favourite anthem:
>>"OO is just an arbitrary and ad hoc collection of features
>>useful for constructing large unpredictable state machines
>>from small predictable state machines"
>>Please notice the "just". Seems we're not into objective
>>facts or rational, well backed arguments no more, but into
>>judgement call. What Bob fails to demonstrate IMHO is this

> Ok. At the moment I have to agree that "just an arbitrary
> and ad hoc" is this far unjustified. I don't know anything
> about the origins of Simula nor of those early days of OO.
> So maybe Bob is right; but, yes he hasn't demonstrated the
> "arbitrary and ad hoc" yet.

It is a falsifiable statement. I leave it to the reader to verify for himself or to contradict for himself. If the creation was not arbitrary, what principles drove the design of language features? If the creation was not ad hoc, what drove the need for the computational model?

> Furthermore, in the case of C++ and it's particular OO
> concepts, I don't think "arbitrary and ad hoc" is justified.
> Stroustrup put a great deal of thought and design into the
> C++ version of OO concepts. As did many other people during
> it's evolution.

Can you enumerate the principles used and the impetuses for inclusion of new features? Did a concern for correctness ever drive the addition of a feature? Did any theory or branch of mathematics drive the addition or removal of any feature?

>>and it's implication, ie "OO has no possible/sensible
>>application outside this domain". Since I also failed to
>>verify this implication by experience so far, I do
>>question this assertion.

> Hmm ... interesting. We parse the "just" differently. I
> parse it as:
> "OO is (just (an arbitrary ...)) useful for ..."
> where you seem to parse it as
> "OO is (an arbitrary ...) (just (useful for ...))"
> I'm not sure which Bob meant.

The former. OO is just an arbitrary and ad hoc collection of features. Those features are useful for creating large unpredictable state machines out of small predictable state machines.

That they are ad hoc is supported by the origin of OO in Simula, which was not created as a general programming language. It was an ad hoc simulation language that was later used for other things too.

That the features are arbitrary is supported by the prevalence of OO languages omitting one or another feature from the computational model or adding one or another feature to the computational model.

That the features are useful for creating large unpredictable state machines is supported by too much evidence to enumerate so I will merely point to the ad hoc need that drove the creation of Simula in the first place.

>>>(Note George is unable to comprehend words like /an/ and
>>>/useful/. He ignores them and sees /the/ and /defines/
>>>instead. Hopefully you do not have the same problem.)
>>I'll leave this to your appreciation - please just take
>>into account that I'm not a native english speaker...

> Really? Well you seem to be doing perfectly well to me. Well
> done, with English I mean.
> -- Keith -- Fraud 6
Received on Wed Jun 28 2006 - 23:28:00 CEST

Original text of this message