Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

>Ok. I was addressing a larger point, though. For him to make comments
>about OO, he really should know Smalltalk.

His bibliographies lead me to conclude that he does know it. Don't you think it is just a tad hubristic to assume he doesn't simply because he arrives at different conclusions from you?

>If *I*, a mere practitioner
>without a formal computer science background, can read him and conclude
>"he's complaining about things that are easily solved", then there is a
>problem.

A problem with whom, though? That's the question.

>> >"Date just doesn't know Smalltalk and he just hasn't thought about
 pattern
>> >X, Y, and Z to do what he is proposing".
>>
>> That's funny. I read the same things and I think "Date clearly
 understands
>> programming languages. Just see how brilliantly he sweeps away the
 needless
>> complexity of patterns X, Y and Z. I wish I had such a programming
 language
>> without all the arbitrary shortcomings of a language like x where x in
>> C++, Smalltalk, Java, Eiffel, ADA, VB ... }"
>
>Yes, how funny. Just what language do you think we should implement his
>approach in?

A good, well-thought language.

>> Did you ever bother to check Date's references and bibliography to see
>> whether he might have considered Smalltalk or patterns X, Y and Z ? It
 seems
>> unfair to Date to immediately assume he did not.
>
>Didn't bother. I could tell from his writing. You can't *hide* these
 things,
>you know.

Have you considered that you are doing nothing more than reinforcing a stereotype of british arrogance?

>Because they solved the things he was complaining about.

What makes you find their solutions superior?

>> >I was nodding my head to Date's
>> >points and thinking: "Yup, can do".
>>
>> But at what relative cost?
>
>Today it means giving up the relational model and working with OO instead.
>Of course, this is unacceptable to him.

Any well-informed, rational database practitioner would find the idea of giving up the relational model for a navigational model just as unacceptable. Apparently, you have ignored the fact that we had navigational models many years ago and gave them up as impractical.

>> >And that was sad, because by criticizing
>> >C++ and thinking its OO (:-), he gets written off by an field that
>> >could use his help.
>>
>> He did not criticize C++, per se. He merely responded to Stroustrup's
 essay
>> as a widely recognized, respected, published exemplar of the counter
>> argument. He could just as easily have chosen any other published
 exemplar
>> of the counter argument based on any other OO language.
>
>Sorry, I led you astray. I was not refering to Stroustrup. I was refering
 to
>Date's railing against OO where it was plain he was railing against
 *crappy*
>OO languages. Hence my C++ comment.

Since Smalltalk is just as crappy, I have difficulty discerning a point in the above.

>> Date cannot help it if Stroustrup bases his position regarding the
>> Circle-Ellipse issue on arbitrary limitations of C++.
>
>I quite agree, but I have no first-hand knowledge of this issue.
>
>Now, someone is going to challenge me on what those things/patterns
>were. I have a badly filed scrap of paper in which I wrote it down years
>ago.
>One was (1) So just add the Collection/Relational interface to the
>Object class.

That does not do away with the inherent complexity -- it just tacks on more.

>Another was (2) He really needs to know that its possible
>to program on the class side of the class, e.g., trap every instantiation
>and maintain Dictionaries of all instances of the class.

Could you elaborate on the above? I fail to see a problem seeking the above solution. Received on Sun Aug 26 2001 - 21:20:17 CEST