Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

"Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote in message news:4195d930$0$178$edfadb0f_at_dread11.news.tele.dk...
> I would like to hear opinions about Maurice Gittens paper 'A critical
> reading of the Third Manifesto' (available at http://www.gits.nl/).

I thought it wasn't very well written; I didn't like the way he breaks up the article, so that a lot of paragraphs are on a page by themselves; he uses too many commas.

Oh, you wanted an opinion on the *substance* of the article?

Well, I skimmed it; it was very wordy. Any critique of D&D's "First Great Bluder" is okay in my book; their whole idea is weak. It's pretty funny to hear them complain about how there is no single definition of what an object is, and then conclude that objects aren't tuple. How did they conclude that without a definition of what an object is? In any event, it's pretty clear that D&D don't really understand OOP; look at this week's dbdebunk, in which a very interesting letter is posted about some aspects of language design involving objects and relations, and Date says he pretty much doesn't understand the interesting parts.

OTOH I think the author really misses the point on his critique of the Second Great Blunder. (Shall we just call them 1GB and 2GB?) Pointerless programming is a big win.

Marshall Received on Sat Nov 13 2004 - 16:32:44 CET