Speaking of strings... - Page 16


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 247

Thread: Speaking of strings...

  1. #226
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 22 Oct 2002 03:35:22 -0700, Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> wrote:

    >However:
    >Object Orientation: An approach to developing computer
    >systems/applications/programs/software in which the data structures used
    >are considered the most significant structural elements of the
    >applications.


    Well, that's something I'm unhappy with right from the outset. I see
    programs as buildings (structures) through which people (data) pass.
    Some people (data) tarry awhile and have their hair cut or toenails
    clipped (data manipulation), but the building changes only very
    rarely. Occasionally, a new mezzanine is grafted on, or a new storey
    built on top, while the building is regularly swept and cleaned and
    old data (dossers) removed. No matter, the building itself continues
    to function as it ever did, now with increased functionality for yet
    more people.

    MM

  2. #227
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    But your buildings have rules and information. And your people have structure
    too. Data is useless without rules.

    And as for your building - the way you build it - yes it won't change much.
    Because it can't. So if you need to use the building for something else
    you can't. You have to raze it then raise it. Or build another one somewhere
    else. Now you have too complete buildings that basically do the same thing.
    Pretty soon you will have more.

    Sorry, but software isn't like buildings and people.


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 22 Oct 2002 03:35:22 -0700, Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> wrote:
    >
    >>However:
    >>Object Orientation: An approach to developing computer
    >>systems/applications/programs/software in which the data structures used


    >>are considered the most significant structural elements of the
    >>applications.

    >
    >Well, that's something I'm unhappy with right from the outset. I see
    >programs as buildings (structures) through which people (data) pass.
    >Some people (data) tarry awhile and have their hair cut or toenails
    >clipped (data manipulation), but the building changes only very
    >rarely. Occasionally, a new mezzanine is grafted on, or a new storey
    >built on top, while the building is regularly swept and cleaned and
    >old data (dossers) removed. No matter, the building itself continues
    >to function as it ever did, now with increased functionality for yet
    >more people.
    >
    >MM



  3. #228
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 22 Oct 2002 10:04:55 -0700, "MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:

    >But your buildings have rules and information. And your people have structure
    >too. Data is useless without rules.


    So some people are allowed in certain rooms and not in others! They
    are given a pass (like when visitors trek to His Billness at home)
    which permits access as per the rulez. Think data referential
    integrity and the kinds of things you're NOT allowed to do with
    certain data! What about the men's room? No ladies allowed in there,
    eh? And data can be compartmentalised in much the same way (only allow
    8.3 file names, e.g. "men", for example).

    >And as for your building - the way you build it - yes it won't change much.
    > Because it can't. So if you need to use the building for something else
    >you can't.


    Sure you can! We are converting old barns and warehouses into
    penthouses like there's no tomorrow. But that's buildings; software
    *is* a different matter, you're right. However, I believe that most
    business apps have a fairly long life span, so scrapping them and
    rebuilding would not be necessary - except now, of course, when
    they're going to have to be scrapped and rebuilt in VB.Net if all
    concerned want to stay current.

    > You have to raze it then raise it. Or build another one somewhere
    >else. Now you have too complete buildings that basically do the same thing.
    > Pretty soon you will have more.
    >
    >Sorry, but software isn't like buildings and people.


    It was only an analogy to describe the way I perceive the fluidity and
    transience of data in comparison with the solidity and stability of
    the program.

    MM

  4. #229
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    news:a7varu08r98qkiep79rpepksavotnnbtci@4ax.com:

    > Well, that's something I'm unhappy with right from the outset. I see
    > programs as buildings (structures) through which people (data) pass.
    > Some people (data) tarry awhile and have their hair cut or toenails
    > clipped (data manipulation), but the building changes only very
    > rarely. Occasionally, a new mezzanine is grafted on, or a new storey
    > built on top, while the building is regularly swept and cleaned and
    > old data (dossers) removed. No matter, the building itself continues
    > to function as it ever did, now with increased functionality for yet
    > more people.
    >
    > MM


    I see buildings as structures, on which builders (functions) operate. Every
    once in a while, somebody drills a hole through an electrical wire
    (attempts an illegal operation on a piece of data), at which point a fuse
    blows (an exception is thrown).

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

  5. #230
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 22 Oct 2002 10:04:55 -0700, "MarkN" <vb.@127.0.0.1> wrote:
    >
    >>But your buildings have rules and information. And your people have structure
    >>too. Data is useless without rules.

    >
    >So some people are allowed in certain rooms and not in others! They
    >are given a pass (like when visitors trek to His Billness at home)
    >which permits access as per the rulez. Think data referential
    >integrity and the kinds of things you're NOT allowed to do with
    >certain data! What about the men's room? No ladies allowed in there,
    >eh? And data can be compartmentalised in much the same way (only allow
    >8.3 file names, e.g. "men", for example).


    So you do have rules for the data. Where are the rules kept and enforced?
    Are there different/conflicting rules for the data depending on its location?
    Are the rules all over the place? When are they enforced?

    >
    >>And as for your building - the way you build it - yes it won't change much.
    >> Because it can't. So if you need to use the building for something else
    >>you can't.

    >
    >Sure you can! We are converting old barns and warehouses into
    >penthouses like there's no tomorrow. But that's buildings; software
    >*is* a different matter, you're right. However, I believe that most
    >business apps have a fairly long life span, so scrapping them and
    >rebuilding would not be necessary - except now, of course, when
    >they're going to have to be scrapped and rebuilt in VB.Net if all
    >concerned want to stay current.


    Actually this a place where PP software and buildings are alike. To make
    warehouse into a penthouse a whole lot has to be done.

    I'm not saying business apps don't have long life spans. It could be longer
    or more could be 'reused' if better architected. OO provides a better architecture.

    As for having to scrap VB(C) apps to go to VS.Net - well I hope you learned
    your lesson! Too bad not many have. I'm somewhat with you on improving
    VB(C) vs dumping it and why it happened. Just not that PP is better than
    OO. I think you would be supprised how much 'OOP' you do in VB. Just probably
    not very good.

    >
    >> You have to raze it then raise it. Or build another one somewhere
    >>else. Now you have too complete buildings that basically do the same thing.
    >> Pretty soon you will have more.
    >>
    >>Sorry, but software isn't like buildings and people.

    >
    >It was only an analogy to describe the way I perceive the fluidity and
    >transience of data in comparison with the solidity and stability of
    >the program.


    I understand that and do the same. I just think it was a bad one.

  6. #231
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    Why the change in format? Inserting a blank line between the
    quoted text and your response makes it much easier to distinguish
    the two.

    [reformatted for readability]

    In article <Xns92AF6137BF75Crunebivrincom@209.1.14.29>,
    Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
    > news:3DB417CF.38DD4FE2@netzero.net:


    [...]

    > >> He didn't even mark that section as "snipped",


    > > What do you hope to accomplish with that blatant lie? Or are you
    > > hoping that some reader somewhere will somehow have failed to learn
    > > the meaning of the "[...]" indicator?


    > Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. All I can say is I read too quickly. A
    > must, given the circumstances...


    Such carelessness is never a "must".

    > >> which in his own terms would constitute an overt example of
    > >> tactical illiteracy,


    > > No, but the above does serve as an example of YOUR use of that
    > > tactic. In this case, your unbelievable claim of ignorance of the
    > > usenet convention.


    > What grounds do you have for stating that I claim "ignorance of the
    > usenet convention"?


    You baldly false claim that I "didn't even mark that section as
    snipped", when I had clearly used the convention.

    > Of several possible reasons, you elect the most damning.
    > Interesting!


    No, in this group the "most damning" reason would be that YOU are
    STUPID enough to launch a false attack against someone because you
    missed something that obvious. Deliberately false attacks by the
    cheerleaders.NET are pretty common and generally pass unremarked.

    > As far as I know, but I may be wrong, the use of [...] is not a
    > "usenet convention". It's a well established convention in the
    > entire academic world, and one which has spilled over into the
    > usenet.


    You have it backwards. It explicitly started in usenet, because an
    early newsreader had a problem with regular ellipses ("..."). It has
    since spilled over into more general use, as have such other usenet
    conventions as emoticons.

    > Maybe it's just an academic fad?


    More of a general fad.

    > > Of course, that would be more a use of "tactical ignorance"
    > > than tactical illiteracy, but it is close enough to the same
    > > thing.


    > So ignorance and illiteracy are close enough to be interchangeable?


    Illiteracy is a subset of ignorance, so pretended ignorance is a more
    general form of the same tactic as pretended illiteracy. As a
    rhetorical tactic, they are pretty much the same thing - a way to
    claim the right to ignore facts which are inconvenient to your
    position.

    > Intriguing...


    > >> and thus proves the fallacy of his expressed ethics of discussion.


    > > As elsewhere, you use logical fallacies to move from a false premise
    > > to a groundless conclusion.


    > >> Do unto others what you would have them do unto you?


    > > So you would prefer that I lie about YOUR posts, and pretend to
    > > misunderstand your words? How quaint.


    > No. Don't pretend to be more stupid than me. That's plain
    > impossible, anyway!


    THAT goes into the quote file.

    > >> How convenient!


    > >> One wonders who guides the good doctor in his crusade against
    > >> object oriented approaches. Could it be - SATAN!?


    > > Interesting approach. Especially given the clearly religious
    > > parallel of Jason's "any means all" arguments. So you would cast
    > > me as "the tester" relative to Jason's Evangelism? Interesting.
    > > For someone whose .sig declares "- Agnostic since 1964" you seem
    > > very focussed on religion.


    > Is this another example of tactical ignorance?


    Is that a self referential question?

    > Failure to recognize travesty of major cultural manifestation


    Of WHAT "culture"? And what is your basis for claiming that your
    choice of explicitly religious imagery is linked to a "major cultural
    manifestation" in that culture?

    > point to holes in the set of references which form your persona.


    Your consistent use of sectarian religious variants of more common
    cultural constructs indicates some interesting things about you.
    Pointing that fact out is rather the opposite of the "Failure to
    recognize" in your claim.

    > Or just a lack of a sense of humor.


    Ah, so we are to regard you as "stupid" and a clown, rather than as
    someone arguing in good faith from a position of knowledge and
    experience? Good to know.

    --

    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 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  7. #232
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <3db4c4f6$1@tnews.web.devx.com>,
    "PWilmarth" <pwilmarth80231@msn.com> writes:

    > I'm sorry, but you are just as guilty of degrading the debate
    > with personal attacks.


    Hardly. I use such distasteful constructs sparingly, and only under
    direct provocation.

    > Checked out your website . . . Your Phd is in which discipline?


    That has been discussed here, and is entirely irrelevant. However,
    my primary PhD is in Psychology (other doctorates in History and
    Religious Law). My Bachelor of Science degree was in CS, as was
    some of my postgrad work.

    --

    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. #233
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 23 Oct 2002 05:31:53 -0700, "MarkN" <m@n.com> wrote:

    >So you do have rules for the data. Where are the rules kept and enforced?
    > Are there different/conflicting rules for the data depending on its location?
    > Are the rules all over the place? When are they enforced?


    The rules are made by the chief security officer (programmer) and
    enforced by several security guards (functions, procedures) which are
    sent to various rooms as required to control the people (data) waiting
    to be processed. Obviously, when no people (data) are present, the
    security guards can go off duty. They only go where they're needed,
    you see. They don't just sit around forever on the offchance that
    someone may turn up, like the little old ladies in European public
    toilets. This cuts down on waste and makes for much more efficient use
    of the guards' resources.

    MM

  9. #234
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
    news:3DB6B505.865D6312@netzero.net:

    <snipped as found relevant>

    > You have it backwards. It explicitly started in usenet, because an
    > early newsreader had a problem with regular ellipses ("..."). It has
    > since spilled over into more general use, as have such other usenet
    > conventions as emoticons.
    >


    OK. Didn't really count the variations in parenthetal(?) shape as being
    of great significance. I should have known differently.


    >> So ignorance and illiteracy are close enough to be interchangeable?

    >
    > Illiteracy is a subset of ignorance, so pretended ignorance is a more
    > general form of the same tactic as pretended illiteracy. As a
    > rhetorical tactic, they are pretty much the same thing - a way to
    > claim the right to ignore facts which are inconvenient to your
    > position.


    I'm not sure I agree on the initial definition there. Just because you're
    (meaning the general you, not the individual) ignorant doesn't mean you
    can't read or write. And neither does a lack in the ability to read or
    write indicate a general lack in knowledge, even though it often follows,
    particularly academically generated knowledge.

    > THAT goes into the quote file.


    You're welcome! I'm all for sharing.

    >> Is this another example of tactical ignorance?

    >
    > Is that a self referential question?


    Are you wondering if the question questions itself? In that case I'll
    plead guilty to involontary stack overflow, your honor!

    >
    >> Failure to recognize travesty of major cultural manifestation

    >
    > Of WHAT "culture"? And what is your basis for claiming that your
    > choice of explicitly religious imagery is linked to a "major cultural
    > manifestation" in that culture?


    I take it you're not familiar with late 80's (I think) Saturday Night
    Live. In which Dana Carvey regularly played the character of "The Church
    Lady", a bigot religous spinster with a habit of referring to Satan with
    thise exact words.

    Not manifesting recognition of that is either tactical or factual
    ignorance, by your own definintion.

    >> Or just a lack of a sense of humor.

    >
    > Ah, so we are to regard you as "stupid" and a clown, rather than as
    > someone arguing in good faith from a position of knowledge and
    > experience? Good to know.
    >


    I don't see how a sense of humor is contradictory to knowledge and
    experience. But then, maybe I'm just ignorant?


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

  10. #235
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    In article <Xns92AF81CD65463runebivrincom@209.1.14.29>,
    Rune Bivrin <rune@bivrin.com> writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
    > news:3DB453AF.DF3FB592@netzero.net:


    > [...]


    > >> I noticed you wouldn't discuss the polymorphic attributes of
    > >> Windows controls, with or without OO wrappers. What's the matter?
    > >> Did your feet get wet?


    > > I notice that, like the others, you have proven unwilling
    > > (apparently unable) to define your terms as requested. What's the
    > > matter? Don't you even know what you are talking about?


    > I will, of course request that you define "definition", without
    > using definition-specific constructs.


    Certainly: A description of an abstraction (such as a symbol, word, or
    phrase) which contains the specific information required to clearly
    differentiate between that which falls within the scope of the
    abstraction and that which does not thus fall. Generally, such a
    description should specify those elements which are necessary for such
    differentiation and those elements which are sufficient for such.

    > However:


    > Object Orientation: An approach to developing computer
    > systems/applications/programs/software in which the data structures
    > used are considered the most significant structural elements of the
    > applications.


    Do you really contend that that description contains the information
    necessary to clearly differentiate between "Object Orientated" and
    "not Object Oriented" development? By that description, anyone who
    does not adhere to that philosophy is - "by definition" - not "doing
    OO" - and therefore Jason is clearly dead wrong. Conversely, anyone
    whose approach to development is based on that that philosophy is
    "doing OO" irrespective of the nature and structure of the design and
    code - and therefore Jason is dead wrong about the "advantages".

    > Polymorphism: The ability to have the actions carried out by an
    > equally defined operation be different, depending on the type of
    > the data on which it operates.


    The phrase "an equally defined operation" does not make semantic sense
    in that context. "Equally" is comparative, but you are not providing
    such a comparison. Since there is no such thing as a stand alone
    "equally defined operation", you are defining "polymorphism" out of
    existence entirely. You might want to rework your definition.

    > Inheritance: An implementation technique, which enables a datatype
    > to extend and specialize the definition of another type without
    > repeating it. Thus achieving a form of polymorphism.


    What does that have to do with having "the actions carried out by an
    equally defined operation be different, depending on the type of
    the data on which it operates"?

    By your proposed definition, a "type" statement and any UDT are
    examples of "inheritance".

    > Encapsulation: Minimizing inconsistent coupling between different
    > parts of a system by disallowing direct external access to internal
    > data items. This ensures that implementation and interdependencies
    > of data items are localized to the smallest possible unit where
    > these are fully understood and defined.


    So by your definition "classes" violate (or at least weaken)
    encapsulation. And inheritance does so as well. Interesting.

    > Interface: The externally accessible data items and functions
    > available that appliy to a data structure.


    So "interface" has absolutely nothing to do with defining the method
    or nature of access to those "functions", while the simple definition
    or instantiation of any data structure does constitute an "interface"?
    Interesting. You are aware that the above definition is inconsistent
    with your use of the term, aren't you?

    > Still, you seem unwilling to actually discuss the polymorphic
    > attributes of Windows controls...


    Since none of them constitutes "an equally defined operation", they
    have none (by your definition).

    > [...]


    > >> I specifically pointed out - and which point you conveniently
    > >> moved out of context to three paragraphs later - that I didn't
    > >> care.


    > > An entirely irrelevant - and apparently untrue - claim. You
    > > obviously DO care, since you raised the point and have now reacted
    > > to my response.


    > Aha, so you judge me by my interface,


    Since you are not a "data structure", you do not HAVE an interface
    according to your definition.

    > and not my internal implementation?


    That depends on the scope of "judge". If I was diagnosing you, I would
    most certainly be basing significant parts of my judgment on your
    "internal implementation". But when judging you as a correspondent, I
    judge you primarily by the output of certain of your internal
    processes, irrespective of the fact that they do not "apply to a data
    structure."

    > Be aware then, that I am polymorphic.


    Not by your stated definition.

    > You can not know what actions may be executed on your operations.


    You are not executing ANY actions on my "operations". Nor are your
    variations due solely to the "type" (ASCII string) of the "data"
    (posts) I am presenting to you. Your claim is inconsistent with your
    definition.

    > > Your fallacy I mentioned is a common trick of the desperate: the
    > > false dichotomy. You falsely cast an issue in terms of ONLY two
    > > choices, when those two answers do not reflect the nature of the
    > > issue.


    > So, in terms you can understand: There is a false dichotomy in your
    > claim.


    No there isn't. In fact, there is no dichotomy at all - just an
    observation concerning your chosen tactic, and another observation
    concerning the common use of that tactic.

    > You imply that there are only two positions in a discussion: being
    > Bill or being desperate.


    Not at all. It is interesting that you claim to infer that, however.
    The only thing *I* implied is that your use of "desperation tactics"
    says something relevant about your own state of mind. The ability (and
    choice) to make your point without such games has nothing to do with
    whether you ARE "me" or whether you agree with me regarding the
    issue(s) under discussion at the time.

    > In the real world, this is a sliding scale, and most people tend to
    > dwell on the middle ground.


    LOL!!! There is a "sliding scale" between "being Bill" and "being
    desperate"? That is hilarious. And flattering, in that you thereby
    describe me as the polar opposite of "being desperate".

    > Thus, you exploit a common trick of the desperate.


    So you are claiming that I am exploiting you by pointing to your use
    of "a common trick of the desperate." there? Interesting, but largely
    irrelevant.

    > >> Thus I have not expressed a position on the issue,


    > > Again, a false leap. Expressing an emotional disinterest (even
    > > if you were honestly doing so) is not the same thing as not
    > > expressing a position on the issue.


    > The reader reading a position into a statement is not the same
    > thing as the writer expressing that position. But, since the
    > beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I will grant you your view.


    > [...]
    > > Exactly WHAT are you claiming that I "read into" your "But then
    > > we're facing the issue of the Popes beard: Is an IF statement OO
    > > or procedural?" (another example of the religious orientation
    > > you have shown elsewhere).


    > A large portion of our


    "Our" who?

    > cultural baggage emanate from the domains of our religious history.


    Whose religious history is that? Certainly not "Mainstream America",
    the culture of the majority of correspondents here. Nor "Mainstream
    UK", the culture of a very large minority of the correspondents here.

    > The Popes beard is one of these gems. Look into it.


    I have. It is an explicitly parochial variation on a much more common
    theme, and is not in common use outside of certain religious
    communities.

    > You may be surprised at how many proverbs and sayings come from the
    > bible and other religious texts.


    You might be surprised at what I am aware of. Such as your tendency to
    use religious variants rather than their more common secular
    counterparts.

    > Or Shakespeare, of course.


    Nick Bottom rides again.

    > Me, I just use it to show off.


    And in so doing, show more of yourself than you apparently intend.
    Interesting.

    > >> Bear in mind that OO may well have existed as a pattern in the
    > >> world of programming before the Norwegian duo formalized it.


    > > Irrelevant. OO, as discussed here, IS a formalized set of
    > > principles and constructs for the design and implementation of
    > > software. Trying to "see" it in code which predates the beginning
    > > of that formalization merely reinforces the religious nature of
    > > your argument. And goes a long way toward rendering your claims
    > > (and Jason's) meaningless.


    > So loops didn't exist before the formalization of the while
    > construct, then?


    What an odd non sequitor. No, the correct version of your statement
    would be "WHILE ... WEND Loops didn't exist before the formalization
    of the while construct." And your little excursion into historical
    revision would be the equivalent of trying to argue that "WHILE ...
    WEND" loops "may well have existed as a pattern in the world of
    programming before the formalization of the while construct." A clear
    absurdity.

    > How you discuss OO, and how I discuss it are not the same thing.


    Clearly. I prefer a substantive exchange of factual statements and
    informed opinions, supported by provably logical chains of extrapolation
    and deduction, in an attempt to promote understanding of the issues.
    You appear to prefer japes, games, rhetorical tricks, personal attacks,
    and dazzling leaps of illogic in an attempt to provoke emotional
    responses and gain some imagined advantage for your claimed position.

    [...]

    > >> Following your argument, if an IF statment is OO neutral, it
    > >> implies that the constituent parts of a component/module/object
    > >> has no bearing on how to view the item as a whole.


    > > Given the importance of formal logic to software design and
    > > implementation, your apparent inability to handle even the most
    > > basic elements says something quite sad.


    > > No, the former does NOT imply the latter. By your leap of illogic,
    > > the statement that "water is Ph neutral" would imply that "the
    > > constituent parts of a solution have no bearing on the acidity of
    > > the solution as a whole". Clearly an absurd leap of illogic on
    > > your part.


    > Bill, the acidity of a soloution depends on other substances,


    ....AKA "constituent parts of the solution"...

    > and these have distinct acidic properties.


    Which just goes to reinforce the fact that your earlier claimed
    extrapolation was utterly illogical. You are the one who made the jump
    from "<component> is neutral for the issue" to "the components have no
    bearing on the issue." By YOUR argument, we would be able to jump from
    "Water (a constituent part of many solutions) is Ph neutral" to "the
    constituent parts of a solution have no bearing on the Ph level of the
    solution." As that example shows, your so-called extrapolation is
    completely without merit.

    > Which programming language contructs are the ones that turn a piece
    > of software into OO, then?


    And there you go with your rhetorical games again. In this case, the
    "all or nothing" fallacy. When your "no bearing" game was discredited,
    you tried to play the same kind of game at the opposite pole. But that
    particular game conflicts with both my stated position and your own
    "definition" of OO (above).

    > [...]


    Interesting that you chose to eliminate the quote of that step of
    your claim:

    : Accordingly, it is the exposed interface of a unit that we will have
    : to use to classify it.

    > > Your claim is like declaring that we should classify the Ph of a
    > > solution based on the color of the solution.


    > I would like to think that the Ph of a solution forms part of the
    > external interface of that solution, so this is a preposterous idea.


    You were the one making the preposterous claim. Trying to deflect
    attention to what you "would like to think" does nothing to make your
    claim any less preposterous.

    > Certainly one that I have never expressed.


    You were the one arguing for judgment by external characteristics
    rather than internal components.

    > >> Ergo! an ActiveX control is an object!


    > > Again, you started with an invalid premise, went through an
    > > unsupported leap of illogic to an intermediate unsupported (and
    > > false) claim, and from there to yet another unsupported claim.
    > > Your attempt to claim QED is completely worthless.


    > > It is like declaring that Nitric Acid is actually Ph neutral
    > > because it looks like water.


    > I would like to think that the Ph of a solution forms part of the
    > external interface of that solution,


    Again, you carefully avoid ACTUALLY making the claim, but base your
    argument on what you "would like to think" - more of your rhetorical
    games. It seems clear that you are aware that your "argument" (or was
    it another of your intended jokes?) was fatally flawed, but are
    emotionally incapable of admitting that fact and moving on.

    > so this is a preposterous idea. Certainly one that I have never
    > expressed.


    Your claim that you did not explicitly use my simile to your argument
    is irrelevant. The validity of the simile - and the fallacy of your
    argument - stands.

    > [...]


    Interesting that you chose to delete your own "point", but quoted my
    reference to it. For the sake of context, it was:

    : Moreover, I could make the point - but will refrain from doing so -
    : that an if statment could really be seen as a method call on a
    : boolean expression, taking one or two code blocks as parameters,
    : albeit with a somewhat kludgy syntax.

    > > And if you DID try to "make that point", you would reduce "OO" to
    > > complete meaninglessness. You would be saying that EVERYTHING
    > > is OO, which would mean that NOTHING is OO (because there would
    > > no longer be anything that distinguishes OO from not OO). And all
    > > of the claimed "benefits" of OO would be completely invalid,
    > > since the worst "any way" undocumented spaghetti code would be
    > > OO. If you are going to argue that OO is anything but a
    > > meaningless and worthless fiction, you will need to be very clear
    > > about what differentiates OO from "not OO".


    > On the scale of singular statements, OO is indeed meaningless, as
    > is MP, or any other popular abbreviation.


    Which is why your carefully deniable trial balloon would be so
    harmful.

    > The question is where on on that scale OO traits become visible.


    That depends on how you are defining "OO traits", and the implications
    thereof. A "method call" invoked from a "class" is at the same level
    "on that scale" as the IF statement, and is clearly related to OO.
    But whether YOU would call that an "OO trait" - and whether you would
    thereby claim something about the nature of the body of code which
    includes it - is an entirely separate issue.

    > I don't think such a discreete point exists.


    That would appear to be a function of the ephemeral nature of your
    use of the term "OO traits".

    > [...]


    > > In your rather religious view.


    > And look who is preoccupied with religion now?


    Just responding to the nature of your posts.

    > [..]


    > >> Even absolutely pure water contains both acid and its
    > >> counterpart (whatever that is termed in english),


    > > "Alkaline" or "Base" - both are acceptable.


    > Thanks.


    > > And no, absolutely pure water contains neither acid not alkali.
    > > Neither Oxygen nor Hydrogen is inherently acidic or alkaline, and
    > > absolutely pure water contains nothing but molecules consisting
    > > of two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen (a molecule which
    > > is neither acidic nor alkaline). And the DEFINITION of neutrality
    > > on that scale (Ph) is at the macro level rather than at the
    > > component level.


    > Consult, if you will, your chemistry books.


    I have.

    > Pure water will contain positive Hydrogen (H+) ions and negative
    > hydroxy (OH-) ions.


    No, Absolutely Pure water can be DISSOCIATED into those components by
    the introduction of various impurities, but does not contain them in
    its AP state. Absolutely pure water (which you specified in your claim)
    has some very interesting qualities. For instance, you can cool it to
    well below 0 Centigrade without it freezing. But introduce a single
    molecule of contaminant to that supercold water and it will instantly
    solidify.

    > [...]


    Again, interesting that you snipped the specific antecedent:

    : 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.

    > >> Of course.


    > >So you agree that Jason's claim is invalid. Thank you.


    > No.


    You can't have it both ways. When you acknowledged the validity of my
    statement, you acknowledged the invalidity of Jason's relevant claim.

    > [...]


    Another rather pointlessly out of context quote by you. Odd. The
    antecedent was:

    : The cost/benefit aspect of this was never in question.

    > > Irrelevant. The issue was the SOURCE of the benefit and, as you
    > > just acknowledged, Jason was completely wrong in his position on
    > > that issue.


    > >> To someone who doesn't like quacking ducks, earplugs will be a
    > >> good investment.


    > > Again, irrelevant.


    > If all of this is irrelevant, why to you burden yourself with it?


    The fact that your apparent "responses" to my points were irrelevant
    to the points themselves was in itself relevant.

    > That is surely the sign of fervour without conviction!


    No, just thoroughness.

    > >> But I contend, your honor, that if an FFT function is carefully
    > >> wrapped in a warming blanket of object oriented concepts, I will
    > >> be usi220 47351 <gkvdruougg0m5jcd1u3um51e939s3i7uiq@4ax.com> article retrieved - head and body follows

    From: Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk>
    Newsgroups: vb.dotnet.discussion
    Subject: Re: Why Is OOP So Hard?
    Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 20:57:42 +0100
    Message-ID: <gkvdruougg0m5jcd1u3um51e939s3i7uiq@4ax.com>
    References: <3dafb964$1@tnews.web.devx.com> <3db6dd02@tnews.web.devx.com>
    X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.92/32.572
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-3708.bonobo.dialup.pol.co.uk
    X-Trace: 23 Oct 2002 12:48:40 -0700, modem-3708.bonobo.dialup.pol.co.uk
    Lines: 12
    Path: tnews.web.devx.com
    Xref: dnews vb.dotnet.discussion:47351

    On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:40:08 -0400, "Richard Curzon"
    <rcurzon@spamcop.net> wrote:

    >Because enough people are sheep, so it works. A golden opportunity for
    >people with a vested interested making things mystical and beyond your
    >grasp.


    Exactly! Complexity sells training certificates! The art of good
    design is to make something that is complex appear simple. That's why
    Bill G was blown away by Alan Cooper's "VB" (Ruby) prototypes.

    MM

  11. #236
    PWilmarth Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Well, I'm not the least bit surprised that you PhD is in psychology. The
    tone of your responses makes that abudantly clear. You can make rational
    and lucid arguments without the manipulative psychological games. Just because
    the other side is engaging in name-calling, doesn't mean that you have to
    respond in a like manner (as you know very well). It's an inappropriate use
    of your knowledge and skills to attempt to win (a pretty meaningless) debate
    by trying to manipulate and control the debate through analysis of the other
    side's psyche. You can choose to walk the high ground (which you know very
    well).

  12. #237
    Rune Bivrin Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@netzero.net> wrote in
    news:3DB6F61C.4694D633@netzero.net:

    < Major chain saw massacre >

    > I agree that the effects of the creation and (mis)use of classes (the
    > embodiment of that merger of code and data) is often disastrous. That
    > is why I argue that they should be used only sparingly and then only
    > under tightly controlled conditions.
    >


    But you agree that they can be used.

    >> I maintain it's fair to say that OOP can be an effective tool for
    >> implementing MP, and that MP is a useful mindset when designing OO
    >> systems. They have very few - if any - conflicting goals.

    >
    > And I maintain that you are wrong in several particulars. Especially
    > about the first part. And while I have covered those particulars at
    > length up to now, I will probably address them yet again sometime
    > soon.
    >


    Let me rephrase myself ever so slightly:

    I maintain it's fair to say that OOP can be an effective tool *when*
    implementing MP, and that MP is a useful mindset when designing OO
    systems. They have very few - if any - conflicting goals.

    We may not find ourselves on the same point on the somewhat synthetical
    MP <--> OO scale, but I do believe some of our goals are rather
    identical:

    Reduce development time & cost
    Reduce maintenance time & cost
    Increase extensibility, where worthwhile

    How we choose to achieve those goals must ultimately be a matter of
    personal and corporate taste and guesswork.

    To quote 10cc in "The things we do for love": "Agree to disagree, but
    disagree to part".


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


  13. #238
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    >
    >The rules are made by the chief security officer (programmer) and
    >enforced by several security guards (functions, procedures) which are
    >sent to various rooms as required to control the people (data) waiting
    >to be processed. Obviously, when no people (data) are present, the
    >security guards can go off duty. They only go where they're needed,
    >you see. They don't just sit around forever on the offchance that
    >someone may turn up, like the little old ladies in European public
    >toilets. This cuts down on waste and makes for much more efficient use
    >of the guards' resources.


    That is what security guards do. They are around in case someone shows up.
    Not only just when they show up.

    It would be better if the security officer had less guards to manage, train
    and hire. And less locations.

    The key to an analogy is that it must make some sense, apply somehow to the
    discussion and make it clearer.

    What you see as data is actually an object, you just don't see it.

  14. #239
    Mike Mitchell Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...

    On 24 Oct 2002 04:38:50 -0700, "MarkN" <m@n.com> wrote:

    >What you see as data is actually an object, you just don't see it.


    Fine. You carry on seeing data as an object and I'll continue seeing
    it as names, addresses and social security numbers!

    MM

  15. #240
    MarkN Guest

    Re: Speaking of strings...


    Mike Mitchell <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >On 24 Oct 2002 04:38:50 -0700, "MarkN" <m@n.com> wrote:
    >
    >>What you see as data is actually an object, you just don't see it.

    >
    >Fine. You carry on seeing data as an object and I'll continue seeing
    >it as names, addresses and social security numbers!
    >
    >MM


    As soon as you define it in any way, it no longer is just data. Giving it
    a name is defining it. Giving it rules is defining it too. I don't see
    'data' as an object either. You don't have to say it is an object and neither
    do I. But each piece of 'data' has definition to it. OO principles allow
    the definition follow the 'data'. If you define the 'data', and you have,
    but don't have allow the definition to follow the 'data', then you are doing
    still doing OOP, just not very good. And your application will NOT be like
    what Richard described to be a good application.


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