Re: (OT) In search of a definition

riplin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 4, 2:33 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rip...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:14 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Clark F Morris wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:44:29 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

William M. Klein wrote:
As someone who "grew up" in an IBM mainframe environment and now
primarily works under Windows XP, I am in search of a "good
definition" (that will be understandable to Windows people) of
the UNIX/Linux-type environment concept of a "package" as in

Download the libgmp package ...

I suggest looking in one of the Linux book for a definition of
package. Since much of Linux, especially the kernel and things
related to the kernel is in C NOT C++, the following from probably
would be misleading to a Linux installer/maintainer.

Gee Clark, guess I just wasted my time...:-)

Yes.

It's OK, I won't do it again.

It certainly was not my intention to mislead anybody.

I programmed with C many years ago, BEFORE C++, and the concept of
a package was NOT part of the language.

(Libraries certainly were.)

The concept of a package is not related to _any_ language.

Oh, here we go with another exposition on things that are generally
known. Grandmothers sucking eggs again.

While they may be 'generally' known, your: "the concept of a package
was NOT part of the language" indicated that what I related was not
known to you.


You seem sometimes completely incapable of reading what was written
without looking for something to formulate a hostile response from.

Yes, Richard, I know (as I'm sure most people here do too) that
"package" has many meanings.

Then you completely missed the point of my message which was that
'package' has been used to mean the same thing (a bundle of related
programs, procedures, types and variables) for several decades. Its
use in Java is the same as its use in C or other languages.

That is not the ONLY meaning and, if its use in Java is the same as in "C or
other languages" (which it isn't) then my using Java as an example was
probably not a bad idea.


It may well be that Java uses a Jar file where others may use a tar or
a pkg. In fact a Jar is just like a zipped tar.

Your: "the term is primarily related to Object Oriented Programming"
is complete nonsense.

In Java the Package is a collection of Classes. It has a specific meaning.
As Classes relate to OOP my statement is not the nonsense you claim.

He was asking about Linux/Unix packages such
as .rpm, .deb or .pkg.

Yes he was. And you have particular expertise with that but never responded.

I don't have expertise in that area so I used something I do know something
about to help explain a concept.

I was attempting to explain the concept of a package, as it is used in
Java, by way of an example. As you stated above that the use in Java is the
same as in C (actually, it is the same as C++) then you should have no
reason to be so incensed about this.

I note that you never responded with all these pearls of wisdom to the
original request. Had you done so we might not be having this conversation.


These, just like Java packages and any other, are zipped collections
of code and data appropriate to a particular topic.

Java packages are NOT "zipped collections of code and data appropriate to a
particular topic" so extrapolating that wrong concept to "just like any
other" is way off the beam. If you are going to be pedantic about things, at
least get them right. There is a major difference between a Package and a
Jar in Java.


I used the Java one purely as a means to explain a
concept. My motives were pure and it was intended to be helpful., in
specific response to a request for help.

Except that it was a diatribe that entirely missed the question and
frequently, it seemed, was intended to demean or insult.

You have your posts mixed up. The original post was not a diatrible and even
the response to Clark was not intended to deman or insult. Perhaps you see
offence where none was intended?

Why would that elicit such a vicious and personally offensive
response?


Granted I did call you an 'arrogant prat' for your condescending
comment to Clark,

Would it not have been better to let Clark do that as he was the "injured
party"?

No, what you expressed was your unsolicited opinion. It was intended to be
offensive and it was unecessary. In other words, it was mean.

Obviously, there is a meanness in you that needs expression occasionally.



It happens
that you never met the term before using Java and thus think that it
is related to that language.

No, I had been dealing with packages of one kind or another many
years before that. The Java usage was the first time I had come
across it in an OO environment.

I quote: "I first encountered this in Java". And you quote it out of
context. As the question and
packages in general are not specifically related to OO, as you had
claimed, then I find this at attempted excuse.

As they are indeed related to OO in the context where I used them, you are
simply wrong.

Basically Java used the keyword 'package'
where C used #import (and it does mean something somewhat more,
granted), but 'package' is used by C. For example in my UniPlus SVR3
manual (1983) stdio is referred to as "stdio - standard buffered
input/ output package". Others are similarly labeled.

Well the C manuals I used DIDN'T do that and I notice the manual you
quote uses the term without definition, in a loosely acceptable way.

So you have read right through the SVR3 and Edition 7 manuals to
determine that there is no definition for 'package'.

I don't need to. I am totally confident that , had there been one, you would
have quoted it. You didn't.



I then went back to my set of Unix edition 7 and found exactly the
same headings.

You really set yourself some fascinating projects...

Hardly a 'project', they are just on the bookshelf.


Linus Torvalds is not favorably impressed with C++.

Gosh, I guess OO and Classes must be rubbish then. There goes all
the Java applications in the World, the Windows OS, all the C++ in
existence, all the Ruby, Python, C#, .NET... guess that leaves us
with...Unix and mainframe COBOL.


One of the reasons that Vista was late is alleged to be that MS were
developing the replacement of XP to run on top of the .NET CLR. After
3 years it was found to be slow and unmanageable and was likely to
never work so they put Vista together in 18 months by taking 2003
kernel and adding Aero and some other stuff.

And it is alleged there may be life on Mars.


The implication of that is that C# is not viable to write an OS in.


As no one has tried that may well be the case. Is there a point to this.

Although preprocessors to turn C++ into C had been available
since the early 80s these produced very slow code. Several C++
compilers were available from the late 80s (Zortech, Borland,
Lattice, etc - I bought Zortech C++ in 1990) but these also had
performance issues due to the way the language worked.

given that it was a "magnum opus" he would be hardly
likely to want to restart from scratch. (Any more than I would want
to go back and rewrite all the COBOL I wrote before better
approaches were revealed...)

Given that the first C++ translated to C then it should be obvious
that C can be OO too. Structs for the data, procedure pointers for
the methods. Certainly the language can help formalise how OO is
written but it is not essential.

Essential or not, he didn't use it, and there is much more to OO
approaches than structs and pointers. The whole point of my post was
about concepts but it would require imagination to see that.

Was that intended to be insulting ? Or was it just an accidental
artifact of your normal tone ?

Richard, if I intended to insult you (or anyone else), believe me you would
know about it.

Unlike some people I don't see personal attack as being productive.


I think you will find that the concept of a "package" is applied in
C++ and not in C.

Or perhaps you never read Unix and C manuals from the late 70s.

Oh sure, couldn't put them down... Gripping stuff for anal
retentives. I DO read manuals and papers pertaining to 2009 but I
try to stay off the classics...

I read them _in_ the 70s and 80s.

Perhaps, if you were fluent in these languages you could contribute
more positively to the conversation?

Arrogant prat.

Pot calling the kettle "black".

I WAS piqued when I made the comment, but there was no arrogance in
it. I saw Clark's post as being negative and said so. It isn't
arrogant in any argument to question the source. And it was not
intended as a personal slight on Clark.

So that was accidental then.

Only you seem to be upset about it.



I see yours as hostile and stupid so I might as well say that too.


I do note that you see things that disagree with you, or point out
your narrow viewpoints, as 'hostile and stupid'.

Sometimes, yes.


However as you ARE fluent in these languages and as you usually have
something worthwhile to contribute here, I'm all ears...

Then I find your post simply agrees with me,

Which is interesting because it doesn't agree at all.

I think I showed that it did.

The question was about Linux packages (.rpm, .deb, etc) and you
completely missed the point and rambled about about how packages were
_only_ about OO and Classes. It may well be that your with lack of
wide experience you had only come across the term in limited contexts.

No, I chose to use Java as an example and, in that context a package IS a
collection of OO Classes. The question was NOT about Linux packages per se,
it was about explaining the concept of a package to someone with a Windows
background.

I had a shot at it. I'm really surprised you didn't.

which renders the hostility in
it kind of pointless.

Where it seems your definition of 'hostility' is: 'evidence that shows
you are wrong'.

No, I have no problem with being wrong (it does happen occasionally :-)) On
this occasion, your so-called evidence is evidence of something I never
argued. You know very well that your post was hostile.


Hope you're feeling better soon.

Whereas I suspect that you will still be 'piqued'.

Nope, I got over it days ago. I should not have responded to your mail but I
figured it was fair to let you have your say. However, given that the issue
was resolved long ago and nothing further is being added to it, I won't be
responding further on this topic. Feel free to have the last word (if that's
important to you) and know that I will read your post.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... especially the kernel and things ... package was NOT part of the language. ... use in Java is the same as its use in C or other languages. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... Basically Java used the keyword 'package' ... One difficulty with using English language words for technical terms, ... as found in programming, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... primarily works under Windows XP, I am in search of a "good ... a package was NOT part of the language. ... without looking for something to formulate a hostile response from. ... use in Java is the same as its use in C or other languages. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: (OT) In search of a definition
    ... Basically Java used the keyword 'package' ... One difficulty with using English language words for technical terms, ... A 'database' can be any organised set of data. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Mixing languages with Ada
    ... year Adacore has decided to stop using the RPC package based in Annex-E ... based from Java Cobra subsystem, ... And you can use the language of your choice ... Includes Ada examples. ...
    (comp.lang.ada)
Quantcast