Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 03:10:40 +0200
Message-ID: <44a2f83e$0$8350$636a55ce_at_news.free.fr>
Keith H Duggar a écrit :
> 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.
There are so many books I should read, and too few time to do so. Since I don't use C++, and don't plan on using it, I guess this will be in another life. But thanks for sharing your opinion on it anyway...
>
>>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.
Well, given the context, it may not have been that clear either...
>
>>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.
In this version of the quote, yes. But while acute, it's not totally
innocent, at least in the context. BTW, I must agree that, when he
forget to insult peoples, BB show some talents in rethorics !-)
>
>>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 >>"just"
>
>
> 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;
Maybe he's right, maybe not. And anyway, the origins of OO and the fact that it may be appropriate for a given purpose ("constructing large unpredictable state machines") are not enough to prove it cannot be suitable for other purposes.
> but, yes he hasn't demonstrated the
> "arbitrary and ad hoc" yet.
This can be backed by the lack of mathematical background and/or theoretical formalism[1]. But here again, the choice of the words is nothing but innocent.
[1] and is this that true ?
"The early approach to SIMULA was, as evidenced by the quotation above,
based on the notion of a mathematically formulated network concept"
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~cim/sim_history.html
Anyone on this ?
> 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.
>
>
>>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.
>
I'm not a native english speaker, so it may impact the way I perceive some nuances here. But here again, BB have expressed it's views on OO in a such a clear way (!) in this and a couple past threads that I don't think my understanding of this sentence is too way off.
>>>(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?
Sans le moindre doute possible.
> Well you seem to be doing perfectly well to me. Well
> done, with English I mean.
Since I didn't spot any insult in your reply, I assume I passed the "floor IQ requirement" test too ?-) Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 03:10:40 CEST