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

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 07:23:21 GMT
Message-ID: <JdLog.3560$pu3.87166@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Marshall wrote:

> George wrote:
> 

>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>>I don't recall claiming to have defined it. I described it's origin and
>>>construction. Do you see what I mean by your stupidity preventing you
>>>from comprehending relatively simple english? You are not smart enough
>>>to understand what is actually written so you respond to something
>>>entirely different instead.
>>
>>Now you "don't recall claiming to have defined it", here's what you
>>said:
>>
>>>OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one
>>>means an example of a computational model. Idiot. Further, it is a
>>>computational model comprising a collection of features useful for
>>>constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable
>>>state machines or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
>>>for what seemed expedient at the time.
>>
>>You say what you believe OO is and what it is not, that looks like an
>>(informal) definition to me.

"A baseball is white" describes what a baseball is and is not. It does not define a baseball.

> As near as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks that with
> the above paragraph, Bob was attempting to define OO.
> Certainly I don't think that, and it is also clear Bob doesn't
> think that.

In fact, Bob doesn't think OO has anything so useful or clear as a definition, which is ultimately its biggest problem. At best, one can describe bounds for what OO might be. That's great for selling snake-oil but not much else. Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 02:23:21 CDT