Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

Marshall Spight wrote:
> 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?

Well, "everyone" agrees that an object has atributes that you can't access directly, only via methods; whereas tuples have attributes that you can access directly, and has no methods. So even without a single, formal definition of an object it is clear that whatever it is, it is NOT a tuple!

> 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.

I agree that this is a poor response, but not necessarily that Date doesn't understand OOP. I think it is another example of the dbdebunk "signal to noise" issue we have been discussing lately - an answer that clearly involved less than 2 minutes thought is published as if it contained something of significance for the public to read. Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 14:39:46 CET