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

Tony D wrote:

> Prefix: usually I stay out of OO-related threads, for the simple reason
> that I have little positive to say about OO, in any guise. However, I
> couldn't let this one go by. You may consider this a health warning for
> what follows.
>
> George wrote:
>
> [ loads and loads of snippage. ]
>
> > Granted OOP is not defined upon one formal definition or
> > formalism
>
> Precisely the problem with it.
>
> > but there is concensus on its general meaning.
>
> Really ? Could you prove that, in anything other than a "motherhood and
> apple pie", utterly bland way ? And are you really suggesting that we
> can do without formal underpinnings, so long as there's "consensus on
> its general meaning" ?
>

Fair question.

There exist ACM type papers based on thorough surveys of the literature, with the goal of documenting the OO taxonomy, a paper by DJ Armstrong springs to mind. Of course, as with all topics, some people would still prefer to hold a differing opinion but I accept it.

As for "can we do without formal underpinnings", there are many endeavors mankind has pursued for thousands and thousands of years without formal underpinnings, we seem to have gotten by. For example languages, cooking, clothing, sport ...

[I'll snip the rest because I mostly agree with it] Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 05:34:14 CEST