Speaking of strings... - Page 12


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 247

Thread: Speaking of strings...

  1. #166
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote in
    news:3dafb90a$1@tnews.web.devx.com:

    > > Very little of the code in those [MS] forms, controls, and
    > > ActiveX DLLs is OO in origin or structure. Instead, it is the
    > > older, non-OO code in an OO wrapper.

    >
    > PhD: Isn't /most/ OO code implemented as "non-OO code in an OO
    > wrapper?" Most of the C++, C#, Java and VB code I've seen certainly
    > has been. I've always thought that the "wrapper" (interface) is a
    > large part of what /makes/ it OO. Are you saying that code doesn't
    > qualify as "OO" unless it employs inheritance or overloading?
    > --
    > Phil Weber
    >
    >
    >


    Furthermore, I'd definitely say that Windows controls and windows are
    polymorphic, which in my book is a fundamental tenet of object
    orientation. Whenever you send a message to a window, it's up to the
    window procedure to determine how to handle that message. The window
    procedure is tied to the CLASS of the window. The fact that polymorphism
    is handled through message identities is irrelevant to the issue, that's
    just an implementation detail.
    It's also quite common to hook into that architecture by subclassing
    window classes (strangely termed "superclassing"), thus making use of
    inheritance.

    Same thing goes for the CloseHandle() function in Win32, doesn't it?
    Highly polymorphic.

    Of course, you could always argue that underneath the hood, this is just
    a superficial OO varnish on procedural code. But then we're facing the
    issue of the Popes beard: Is an IF statement OO or procedural? I don't
    know - and frankly, my dear, I don't give a ****!

    The good doctor has painted himself into a corner where every sign of
    functional OO has to be written off as "non-OO code in an OO wrapper". If
    possible, any evidence to the contrary should be attributed to
    "fallacies".

    As far as I'm concerned, MP is a mindset just as any other way of
    partitioning code, data and functionality is. Certainly, OO is an
    effective way to strucure that within the modules, just as it is an
    effective way to aggregate functionality from disparate modules.

    When it comes to the issue of encapsulation, neither MP nor OO alone can
    protect the internal data structures from stray pointers and
    intentionally mean code. That level of protection requires support from
    the operating system and the hardware. For all intents and purposes,
    you'd have to deploy every module worth protecting as a separate process
    to protect your data. I'll leave it up to the reader to judge the
    practicallity of that for anything they do. Might be overkill for most of
    the stuff I do...
    In that respect, .NET with its OO design does a good job of protecting
    developers from making unintentional modifications to data they're not
    supposed to access. Is that water tight? No, but certainly much better
    than the procedural C runtime achieves.

    The question is, W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD: should WE BILL the doctor for
    the time you consult us? Probably not worth trying, as he is neither good
    nor rich...

    --
    Rune Bivrin
    - OOP since 1989
    - SQL Server since 1990
    - VB since 1991


  2. #167
    PWilmarth Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >With VB.Net and with respect to its oopification, I
    >don't think one can remain in splendid isolation from the concept of
    >OOP to quite the same degree. Sooner or later (and probably sooner) if
    >you're going to want to do things the VB.Net way, you're going to have
    >to know the OOP way of doing it, if only because you have to
    >continually talk to the framework. And the only way to do that is by
    >learning how. I cannot believe that anyone starting with VB.Net would
    >seriously contemplate a career with it without ever knowing OOP in
    >some depth.
    >
    >MM


    Not "in some depth", because the basic concepts are not that difficult to
    learn (or understand), but to become an expert in VB.NET (as in any other
    object oriented language), yes, you need "some depth".


  3. #168
    PWilmarth Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 15 Oct 2002 12:59:15 -0700, "PWilmarth" <pwilmarth80231@msn.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>If, as you imply, OOP is not the solution, but part of the problem, then

    what
    >>would you suggest as a solution?

    >
    >We get to keep *our* preferred tools and are not fobbed off with
    >something we don't want. It's all about choice. For decades, anyone
    >who really wanted to produce software following OOP principles could
    >have done so. They didn't need Microsoft to take away classic VB in
    >order to permit them to do it.


    You still have choice. Who says you have to do any development in VB.NET?


    >The way I'd like to see things done is, they should get easier, they
    >should build upon the ideas inherent in Alan Cooper's design as the
    >Father of Visual Basic, they should involve the *computer* much more
    >by using AI, they should enable ordinary workers and members of the
    >public to write software, as QuickBASIC/VB uniquely made a start in
    >doing, they should be "open" in the sense that no proprietary
    >manufacturer should be allowed to arbitrarily consign a widely used
    >product to the trash.



    Well, this is the dream of your GP, too. Make things easier, simpler, less
    complex. But the world is becoming more complex, not less. You can't move
    the clock back 20 years, Mike.

  4. #169
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:19:02 -0700, "Phil Weber"
    <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:

    >PhD: It takes skill to pack "volumes' worth" of anything into three paragraphs.
    >If only you were half as skilled.


    Eh? I find all that Bill writes highly informative, totally supportive
    of my arguments against OOP and for simplicity, and said with far more
    clarity, panache and conviction than I could muster.

    MM

  5. #170
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    in article <3dafb371$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
    "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> writes:

    > > 2) It is closer to the way people normally think...
    > > 3) It is closer to the way computers operate...


    > PhD: The above two points seem to me to be contradictory. Otherwise,
    > they would imply that people normally think the way computers
    > operate.


    There is a relationship, but it runs the other way. The way people
    separate thoughts about "things" and "actions" had a profound effect
    on the design of the way computers work. Thus, computers were designed
    with sets of general purpose operations (actions) and a general
    purpose system for storing/retreiving data (things).

    > If people do not normally think the way computers operate, then MP
    > cannot be "closer" to both of them, can it?


    Certainly. Remember, "closer" is comparative. X could be "closer" to
    both A and B than Y, even when A is not close to B. For a simple
    numeric example, let A=1 and B=-20. If X < Y and X > 1, then X is
    closer to A and B, even though A and B are not the same. Or for a non
    numeric example: a watermelon is closer to both an apple and an
    orange than a car is.

    However, the issue is moot, because of the relationship described
    above.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  6. #171
    Blob Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 00:19:02 -0700, "Phil Weber"
    ><pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
    >
    >>PhD: It takes skill to pack "volumes' worth" of anything into three paragraphs.
    >>If only you were half as skilled.

    >
    >Eh? I find all that Bill writes highly informative, totally supportive
    >of my arguments against OOP and for simplicity, and said with far more
    >clarity, panache and conviction than I could muster.
    >
    >MM


    So, I caught a mouse this morning.


  7. #172
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <3dafb90a$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
    "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> writes:

    > > Very little of the code in those [MS] forms, controls, and
    > > ActiveX DLLs is OO in origin or structure. Instead, it is the
    > > older, non-OO code in an OO wrapper.


    > PhD: Isn't /most/ OO code implemented as "non-OO code in an OO
    > wrapper?"


    I suppose that is possible, but I seriously doubt it. The main point
    of the above is to draw a clear distinction between code that was
    designed and implemented from the start as OO, and code which came
    from a non OO design and/or implementation and was later hidden
    behind an OO wrapper. While I have seen a lot of the latter
    (especially in the kinds of libraries Jason cited), I have also seen
    a lot of code which was OO from the beginning (especially in Java).

    > Most of the C++, C#, Java and VB code I've seen certainly has been.


    I haven't seen much C# code. The vast majority of the Java code I've
    seen was OO from the ground up. A large minority of C++ code I have
    seen and a much smaller minority of the VB code was. But YMMV.

    > I've always thought that the "wrapper" (interface) is a large part
    > of what /makes/ it OO.


    There is a difference between a wrapper and an interface which was
    part of the original design. A wrapper is an after the fact
    intermediary, rather than an element of the original design. For
    an example, see the OCXs that are nothing more than wrappers for
    various API functions.

    > Are you saying that code doesn't qualify as "OO" unless it employs
    > inheritance or overloading?


    No. Original OOD, deliberate and specific use of classes AS classes
    (as opposed to incidental use of library components with OO wrappers
    or the like), or other deliberate use of OO specific constructs would
    be enough. But Jason's standard of "if you use even one OO wrapped
    component, you are doing OO" is complete nonsense.

    OO is a specific methodology for design and implementation. Code which
    results from deliberate use of that methodology is clearly OO. Code
    which does not really follow the formalities but does make deliberate
    use of OO specific constructs is marginal. Code which does not really
    follow those formalities (as opposed to, say, the formalities of MP or
    SSP), and which makes - at most - incidental use of predefined classes
    or other OO artifacts, is clearly NOT OO.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  8. #173
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 18 Oct 2002 02:04:42 -0700, "PWilmarth" <PWILMARTH80231@MSN.COM>
    wrote:

    >>We get to keep *our* preferred tools and are not fobbed off with
    >>something we don't want. It's all about choice. For decades, anyone
    >>who really wanted to produce software following OOP principles could
    >>have done so. They didn't need Microsoft to take away classic VB in
    >>order to permit them to do it.

    >
    >You still have choice. Who says you have to do any development in VB.NET?


    What does writing "You still have choice." mean if my choice, my
    chosen development product for ten years, has been removed from my
    selection of choices? You can say it all day and all night, but it
    still doesn't give me the choice I want. Do you not understand that?
    Is it so hard to understand how Microsoft have curtailed my freedom to
    continue to choose the very product I *did* choose for over a decade?
    Before you say classic VB will be around for years, let me point out
    that it has been discontinued. Try selling last year's model of some
    car or motorbike when it has been superseded by something new. You'll
    have to sell it at a discount. Try it a couple of years later, and
    you'll have to drop the price considerably. No one is interested in a
    previous year's model, or in obsolete software. Seen those ads in the
    cheapo computer mags for 486-based PCs? Those boxes are not worth a
    penny now. Only enthusiasts will buy something like that. And so it is
    with classic VB now. Although the product still works fine on all
    versions of Windows from 95 to ME/2000 (don't know whether it does on
    XP - I've heard about one or two 'funnies'), everyone knows that
    officially it is a discontinued product. Thus no corporate will risk
    putting its trust in an obsolete product when there is an official
    replacement. The only thing corporates would likely keep VB6 on for is
    maintaining their in-house apps. But it will increasingly become a
    lukewarm exercise, one which has to be done for a year or two, but
    only as classic VB operations are scaled down and they finally cease.

    After all, how could any corporate IT director justify to the board
    that a *new* mission-critical application was being planned using VB6
    when this development tool was found to be obsolete? Of course,
    corporate spokesmen might lie and give the impression that any version
    of VB is "VB", but sooner or later the subject of rewrites would come
    up and questions would be posed about the extra time required, the
    extra costs involved (for retraining etc), and the PC upgrades
    necessary. What employee in these lean times is going to risk his
    position by spinning a line?

    Thus is classic VB doomed. It has been officially canned. But
    unofficially it is now just yet another product that joins Multiplan,
    Lotus 1-2-3, and VisiCalc on the scrap heap of old software. Sure,
    there is support available, but this is the same as saying that a
    hospice will continue giving painkillers to the terminally sick.

    So, do you still think I have a choice? I mean, the kind of choice I'd
    actually want? Not the kind you think I should choose, but what I
    really would choose?

    >>The way I'd like to see things done is, they should get easier, they
    >>should build upon the ideas inherent in Alan Cooper's design as the
    >>Father of Visual Basic, they should involve the *computer* much more
    >>by using AI, they should enable ordinary workers and members of the
    >>public to write software, as QuickBASIC/VB uniquely made a start in
    >>doing, they should be "open" in the sense that no proprietary
    >>manufacturer should be allowed to arbitrarily consign a widely used
    >>product to the trash.

    >
    >
    >Well, this is the dream of your GP, too. Make things easier, simpler, less
    >complex. But the world is becoming more complex, not less. You can't move
    >the clock back 20 years, Mike.


    It's not the world becoming more complex, but the way some
    corporations insist we interact with them and with each other.
    Whenever the question is asked, do people want features or simplicity,
    they *always* reply, simplicity. Most people want a mobile phone for
    phoning others, or to be phoned while away from home or the office.
    They are not interested in all the other gimmicks the phone companies
    are continually trying to thrust down their throats. Check all those
    mobile phones you hear going off on the train, in theatres, cinemas,
    boats, gardens, the street, shops, restaurants. What are 99% of them
    being used for? To take a voice call! The only new activity the mobile
    phone has introduced is texting, and no one in the mobile phone
    organisations ever dreamt that texting would become so widespread.
    They're still expecting we're all going to be surfing the internet on
    a tiny little screen 1.5 inches square! Or having the freezer call the
    supplier to reorder fries!

    Complexity is being designed and packaged for us because vendors know
    we're hooked on gimmickry. For about five minutes after we've bought a
    new gadget, we're dying to show it off to friends and colleagues.
    Look! I only have to push that there and THIS happens! We say proudly,
    as if somehow this is magically going to Change Our Lives.The next
    day, we're already fed up with trying to get some new feature to work,
    or are trying to fathom any sense from the very abbreviated
    instruction leaflet. And so we get music centres, videorecorders,
    PDAs, that are so complex to program, most people end up just worrying
    about the basics, and the "advanced" features never get used at all,
    apart from that initial five-minute swagger before one's peers. Who
    cares whether the subwoofer interbalance or the auto-ambience
    adjustment feature really makes a difference? Apart from a few purists
    or posers - the kind who like driving around with 150 dB blasting from
    their in-car entertainment systems - we just can't be bothered. So all
    that complexity serves one purpose only, which is to sell us stuff.
    Given two radios side by side in the store, one with a single button
    and the other with an array of buttons, an LCD readout, and an LED
    display, which do you think is going to sell? The radio with one
    single button could do practically all of it, though. In/out for
    switching on and off; left for AM, right for FM; turn for volume -
    that's just about all you're ever going to need from most radios -
    unless, of course, you're a radio fanatic. This, in fact, is how cars
    have been standardised. They nearly all come with multi-function
    switches in a handy position on the steering column, instead of the
    plethora of push switches, toggles switches and knobs that once
    adorned the fascias of most cars.

    So, complexity is a completely manufactured entity. It isn't necessary
    for much of our everyday existence. But since we don't have any choice
    (remember, there's that word again), we are forced to participate,
    reluctantly, in the mindset the vendors are conning us with. Of
    course, this is the ideal time for entrepreneurs with vision to
    capitalise on this situation and introduce new products that are
    resoundingly simple in concept and use, and that is, I hope, where
    software development will also be going real soon now.

    MM

  9. #174
    elliferg Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    --snip

    >What does writing "You still have choice." mean if my choice, my
    >chosen development product for ten years, has been removed from my
    >selection of choices? You can say it all day and all night, but it
    >still doesn't give me the choice I want. Do you not understand that?
    >Is it so hard to understand how Microsoft have curtailed my freedom to
    >continue to choose the very product I *did* choose for over a decade?
    >Before you say classic VB will be around for years, let me point out
    >that it has been discontinued. Try selling last year's model of some
    >car or motorbike when it has been superseded by something new. You'll
    >have to sell it at a discount. Try it a couple of years later, and
    >you'll have to drop the price considerably. No one is interested in a
    >previous year's model, or in obsolete software. Seen those ads in the
    >cheapo computer mags for 486-based PCs? Those boxes are not worth a
    >penny now. Only enthusiasts will buy something like that. And so it is
    >with classic VB now. Although the product still works fine on all
    >versions of Windows from 95 to ME/2000 (don't know whether it does on
    >XP - I've heard about one or two 'funnies'), everyone knows that
    >officially it is a discontinued product. Thus no corporate will risk
    >putting its trust in an obsolete product when there is an official
    >replacement. The only thing corporates would likely keep VB6 on for is
    >maintaining their in-house apps. But it will increasingly become a
    >lukewarm exercise, one which has to be done for a year or two, but
    >only as classic VB operations are scaled down and they finally cease.
    >


    mike,

    i work for a corporate IT director who has kept using COBOL 74 for years
    now. I know there are more modern versions of COBOL available, but this
    one suited their needs and the company's pocketbook. they've also used technologies
    that are younger than me. it does not have to be an all or nothing proposition.
    just look at the whole y2k situation. nobody expected the COBOL code to
    still exist when y2k came. yet it still did. corporate it departments are
    not going to walk thru all the cubes uninstalling copies of vb6 and burning
    the disks. they will probably say something closer to "if it's brand new
    or more that a 50% re-write, do it in .net, otherwise keep in in classic."
    I saw that when i was in the air force. there was a mandate that all new
    development and major maintenence be in ada. nobody wanted to write ada
    so we called our new development maintenance and broke our major maintenance
    into smaller pieces so we could get around the mandate. if .net is as horrible
    as you feel, a similar situation will happen with it.


    --snip

    >It's not the world becoming more complex, but the way some
    >corporations insist we interact with them and with each other.
    >Whenever the question is asked, do people want features or simplicity,
    >they *always* reply, simplicity. Most people want a mobile phone for
    >phoning others, or to be phoned while away from home or the office.
    >They are not interested in all the other gimmicks the phone companies
    >are continually trying to thrust down their throats. Check all those
    >mobile phones you hear going off on the train, in theatres, cinemas,
    >boats, gardens, the street, shops, restaurants. What are 99% of them
    >being used for? To take a voice call! The only new activity the mobile
    >phone has introduced is texting, and no one in the mobile phone
    >organisations ever dreamt that texting would become so widespread.
    >They're still expecting we're all going to be surfing the internet on
    >a tiny little screen 1.5 inches square! Or having the freezer call the
    >supplier to reorder fries!
    >


    i personnally would prefer for my freezer to keep me stocked up on fries
    (oh and shrimp too). nothing is worse than going shopping and finding out
    when you get home that there are no fries to go with the hamburgers you are
    planning for dinner.


    elli

  10. #175
    Phil Weber Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    > What does writing "You still have choice" mean if my choice, my
    > chosen development product for ten years, has been removed
    > from my selection of choices? You can say it all day and all night,
    > but it still doesn't give me the choice I want. Do you not understand
    > that?


    Mike: Boo friggin' hoo. I can't find a new necktie in the same shade of red as
    my favorite, worn-out one. And I wish they were still making new episodes of
    "Seinfeld." We can't always get what we want. Deal with it.
    --
    Phil Weber



  11. #176
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <3db030b3$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
    "elliferg" <fergusej@agedwards.com> writes:

    [...]

    > I saw that when i was in the air force. there was a mandate that
    > all new development and major maintenence be in ada. nobody wanted
    > to write ada so we called our new development maintenance and broke
    > our major maintenance into smaller pieces so we could get around
    > the mandate.


    Out in the "contractor" world (mostly Aerospace), we had a slightly
    different approach. The AF contracts allowed us to use Assembly
    language for performance sensitive components. So we basically
    declared everything performance sensitive, created an ADA shell
    (that did little more than turn around and call our real code) and
    put the rest together from our existing code libraries (with new code
    as needed). Of course, our code was by definition real time and
    "close to the metal".

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  12. #177
    elliferg Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote:
    >In article <3db030b3$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
    >"elliferg" <fergusej@agedwards.com> writes:
    >
    >[...]
    >
    >> I saw that when i was in the air force. there was a mandate that
    >> all new development and major maintenence be in ada. nobody wanted
    >> to write ada so we called our new development maintenance and broke
    >> our major maintenance into smaller pieces so we could get around
    >> the mandate.

    >
    >Out in the "contractor" world (mostly Aerospace), we had a slightly
    >different approach. The AF contracts allowed us to use Assembly
    >language for performance sensitive components. So we basically
    >declared everything performance sensitive, created an ADA shell
    >(that did little more than turn around and call our real code) and
    >put the rest together from our existing code libraries (with new code
    >as needed). Of course, our code was by definition real time and
    >"close to the metal".
    >
    >--
    >
    >W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
    >



    just like if someone really wants to continue write vb6 code, they could
    write it, and use the interop to call it from the "required" .net shell...

    elli


  13. #178
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
    > > This is it for me...You've won by fillabuster.

    >
    >Jason: Actually, I thought PhD's post to which you replied was better than

    most:
    >he provided straight answers to several of your questions, he didn't prattle

    on
    >about how "interesting" it was that you had trimmed your quotes, and the

    whole
    >thing came in at under 10KB. Kudos, PhD!
    >--
    >Phil Weber


    I don't agree with him and he doesn't agree with me. Nothing I say is going
    to change that, and half of the posts are now insults. It is a waste of
    bandwidth to continue the "discussion," because there is nothing to discuss.
    Plus, people (including myself at times) have begun to complain about the
    lengths of the posts.

    PHd's contention is that VB6 isn't object oriented at all. He contends that
    the object wrappers in VB6 are not like the object wrappers in .NET. I simply
    don't agree, and won't agree. I use .NET, and I find a lot of similarities
    to the stuff I did and still do in VB6. If it looks like an Object and it
    quacks like an Object, I say it is an Object. PHd says otherwise.

    PHd contends that MP programming is faster to implement, simpler, and easier
    to maintain than OO code. Again, I do not agree.

    So you see, there is no need for me to continue arguing with him. I write
    from my experience, and his arguments have not persuaded me that going back
    to the style of programming I learned 20 years ago is better than the style
    I use today. And they won't.

    So if he won't budge, and I won't budge, what is the point in arguing?

  14. #179
    Jason Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    "Phil Weber" <pweber@nospam.fawcette.com> wrote:
    > > Very little of the code in those [MS] forms, controls, and
    > > ActiveX DLLs is OO in origin or structure. Instead, it is the
    > > older, non-OO code in an OO wrapper.

    >
    >PhD: Isn't /most/ OO code implemented as "non-OO code in an OO wrapper?"

    Most of
    >the C++, C#, Java and VB code I've seen certainly has been. I've always

    thought
    >that the "wrapper" (interface) is a large part of what /makes/ it OO. Are

    you
    >saying that code doesn't qualify as "OO" unless it employs inheritance or
    >overloading?
    >--
    >Phil Weber


    You might want to avoid this topic of "discussion" as well. I've been bantering
    back and forth with Bill for the past couple of weeks, and we have yet to
    agree on the definition of "Object." As far as "Polymorphism" goes, I wouldn't
    go there either (I see you skillfully left that one out in your post).

    I was surprised to find out that, in the world according to Bill, VB isn't
    an object oriented language, and although ActiveX libraries and OCXs expose
    only object interfaces, they have nothing to do with OOP. My mistake.

    I am also "tactically illiterate," whatever that means.

    In short, if you don't agree with what Bill has to say, it is best just to
    respond with "I don't agree," and leave it at that.


  15. #180
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <Xns92AB6A46F66A1runebivrincom@209.1.14.29>,
    Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> writes:

    [...]

    > Of course, you could always argue that underneath the hood, this
    > is just a superficial OO varnish on procedural code. But then we're
    > facing the issue of the Popes beard: Is an IF statement OO or
    > procedural?


    There are three possible classifications: OO specific, OO neutral, or
    OO antagonistic. The IF statement was in common use long before Dahl
    and Nygaard first proposed the OO concept, so it clearly is not OO
    specific. Nothing about it mitigates against OO, so it clearly is not
    OO antagonistic. So it must be OO neutral. The fallacy of your
    question lies in the attempt to cast it as an either/or.

    The issue of a "superficial OO varnish on procedural code" becomes
    relevant when someone (like Jason) tries to argue that the code is
    "OO based" and therefore users of that code are "using and benefiting
    from OOP libraries and methodologies." When the elements in those
    libraries are older "procedural" (to use your classification) code
    with a superficial OO varnish, then the argument is invalid. The code
    is neither "OO based" nor a result of OOP methodologies, and the
    primary benefit comes from the older, underlying code.

    Say I write an FFT function, without using any classes or other OO
    specific constructs or methodologies (which I have). If someone comes
    along and slaps that "superficial OO varnish" (in the form of a
    wrapper) on it, Jason would be completely wrong to point to the
    varnished version as support for his claim. The primary benefit -
    especially to someone who is not trying to do OOP - comes from my non
    OO code rather than the varnish.

    > I don't know - and frankly, my dear, I don't give a ****!


    Which is fine, as long as you don't try to advance Jason's misguided
    argument.

    > The good doctor has painted himself into a corner where every sign
    > of functional OO has to be written off as "non-OO code in an OO
    > wrapper".


    Not at all. Jason is the one in the corner, having built his argument
    on the claim that the elements in question are "OO based" (rather than
    varnished) and that their use constitutes "using and benefiting from
    OOP libraries and methodologies." When it is well known that the
    libraries are in fact old code with your superficial OO varnish, his
    argument falls apart. To support his claim, he would have to
    demonstrate that (1) the components he cites were in fact created with
    OOD/OOP rather than "varnished", and (2) that the OO nature of the
    components is responsible for a significant part of the value of each
    individual component, especially to non OO programmers who simply use
    the component. He has done neither.

    > If possible, any evidence to the contrary should be attributed to
    > "fallacies".


    Not at all. But I will not hesitate to point out such fallacies when
    they are advanced as arguments. Such as the false dichotomy I
    addressed above. Unfortunately, certain of the posters here seem to
    use such fallacies as their primary mode of argument.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center