Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_golden.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:40:43 -0400
Message-ID: <tUXj7.617$Et4.124573788_at_radon.golden.net>


James A. Robertson wrote in message <3B8A684F.7C034C1F_at_mail.com>...
>Date, while well regarded, is not a god. Referncing his points as
>unassailable is merely an argument from authority, which doesn't prove
>anything

Richard never attempted to assail Date's points. He only assailed Date, himself.

Richard never discussed or even identified any specific point that Date ever made. Richard simply proclaimed that Date does not understand OO. From my own experience of the man, I know the proclamation is untrue.

Apparently, Richard views his own statements as unassailable, and it seems as if you might agree with him on this point. What does that prove?

>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>
>--
>James A. Robertson
>Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
>jarober_at_mail.com
><Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
Received on Sat Sep 01 2001 - 04:40:43 CEST

Original text of this message