Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming

On Feb 8, 6:40 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 8, 12:31 am, ggro...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

You have to ignore Topmind on this topic.

He lives in some deluded fantasy world where the OO type regime is
based on trees, when it is as you have stated based on graphs. He
then tries to base much of his anti-OO rants on this delusion.

Is your rudeness necessary?

Is a statement of the *facts* necessary ?? See below ...


The original author was not necessarily talking about OO, but
classification trees. I did not imply tree/hierarchy, it was
EXPLICITLY stated by the author of the message.

WRONG !!!

You haven't even *read* his posting, just what you thought you saw in
your
deluded mind. Just to make the point, here is the entire posting from
the OP :

<quote>

I propose an extension to object-oriented programming: topic-
organized
object-oriented programming.

It is, simply, classifying all of a class' member variables and
member
functions into hierarchical categories by topic.


Member variables and functions under the same topic tend to be
invoked
closely. Therefore, if the class manufacturer explicitly declares
which variables and functions are in the same category, it could help
the compiler to optimize user programs which make use of this class,
because loading of data and code in categories unrelated to the
currently active category can be delayed, while data and code right
in
or related to the currently activated category can be preloaded and
pre-initialized.


Organization by topic also helps in the coding phase because the
class
user no longer has to face a very long list of member functions and
variables when he enters the name of an object instantialized by this
class. He can specify the "currently active topic" and only see
members belonging to this topic. He could switch to a related topic
by
following a link designed by the class manufacturer. For example,
suppose the class is "Human" (a class with member functions
corresponding to almost every conceivable verb) and the currently
active topic is "Car Accident", related topics could be causal-
relation topics such as "Hospitalization" and "Lawsuit".

</quote>

There is no mention of the word "tree" in the above text.


And then, just to compound your delusion ...

When you wrote in reply :

"Trees are usually a poor categorization structures beyond the
trivial."

The OP wrote in reply :

"DAG is always an intuitive generalization of tree."


So to clarify the essential thread to date :

- you started your usual deluded tree rubbish
- the OP responded to inform you they are talking about graphs
- you made a claim about what the OP wrote, which is shown to be
untrue

And you wonder why comp.object treats you so.


We dare not throw in currently available type substitution regimes
because that would shatter his 'set-based is better and OO cannot
do that' rants too (could book him a place in the looney-bin) ... :-)

OO is not required to have types, let alone substitutable types.

Substitutability is one of the most important concepts of OO,
regardless of how
the concept is implemented (strong/weak typing) .


But yes, one can *add* sets to OO, but it can be added to any paradigm or
language if one bothers to write libraries or language extensions.

Feel free to show us how something like substitutability would be
implemented in
a prog lang like PASCAL with data record types.


But OO *itself* is not based on sets, and that is a drawback of OO.

Not at all, because the categorisation techniques that type
substitutability
provides are trivial to add, which is a benefit, not a drawback. This
means the
OO concept is sound because it can be extended orthogonally with such
ease.


Regards,
Steven Perryman

.