Re: CoBOL moved to OO

From: Judson McClendon (judmc_at_sunvaley0.com)
Date: 01/01/04 

Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:07:48 GMT

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote
> >
> > It seems I did not make myself clear, so I will try to be make a specific
> > example. Imagine you have two automobiles, sitting side by side, both
> > oriented in the same direction, at one end of an otherwise empty, level,
> > paved, parking lot. One of these vehicles is a typical modern automobile
> > with an automatic transmission, the other is a model T Ford or a Stanley
> > Steamer (take your pick). Both vehicles are in good operating condition,
> > have fuel, oil and any other expendables, but have been sitting parked
> > for 24 hours. You have an adult person standing there who understands
> > your language, but knows nothing about how to start or drive an automobile.
> > You want the person to move one of the vehicles to the other end of the
> > parking lot using this procedure: start vehicle, drive vehicle to other end
> > of lot, park vehicle. You only need to tell them enough to do this one task.
> > I submit that you would have to do less instruction for them to do the task
> > with the modern automobile than with either the model T or Stanley.
>
> And I disagree that, especially for the Model T, there would be any
> significant difference to get them _safely_ to the other side.
>
> But your conditions are meaningless. This is like a test to se which
> language can display 'hello world' in the fewest source code lines.

Most benchmarks are meaningless, Richard. They are contrived situations
narrowly tailored to measure specifically the areas of interest. :-)

> > Not that you have to chop down, chop up, haul, place in a firebox,
> > and ignite, no. :-)
>
> I think that what you imagine a Stanley Steamer to be is confused.

You may be right there. I am not an expert on early 20th century
automobiles. I have disassembled and reassembled significant parts
of late 20th century automobiles, but no Stanley Steamers. :-)

> > I didn't say it was 'hard', I said you have to know more. :-)
>
> No. You don't have to know 'more', you have to know 'different'.

Having to know 5 things is having to know more than having to know
4 things. ;-) 

-- 
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."