Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:20:10 -0800
On Feb 14, 5:03 pm, b..._at_badour.net wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:51 am, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:> On Feb 13, 6:49 pm, "JOG" <j...@cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > On Feb 13, 1:35 am, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > I believe I need to gain a deeper
> > understanding of your perspective.
> Oh, the irony. Where might I have heard that point before? Sky blue/
> grass green.
Is unecessary cruelty, a part of better understanding of RM? The reader simply stated that he tries to understand you and you basically brush him off by a cynical comment.
> > > > 1. In the design entities can be classified as inside or outside the
> > > > abstract machine
> > > RM does not take this view. It is not concerned with 'entities', but
> > > facts - propositions composed of roles and values.
> > I believe I understand what roles and values mean, but I don't
> > appreciate the importance of the distinction you are making.
He expresses in terms he can understand things that are obvious to you because you rightfully consider unuseful in RM perspective. Question is what is the end of it?
> > My feeling is that my conjecture is comparatively easy to understand
> > for OO and far less clear what it means for RM.
That is illusion.
> OO uses nebulous terms to elevate feelings of understanding above
> actual understanding.
Agreed. Received on Wed Feb 14 2007 - 17:20:10 CET