Re: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)


S Perryman wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1171557209.351442.244450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

S Perryman wrote:

"Kreeg" <kreeg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eqnv9m$u02$1@xxxxxxxxxxx

Okay, if I understood the thread thus far, here's the summary :

- OP makes his comments.
- topmind says "I don't like trees"

No.
An attempt was made to hijack the thread with a usual rant about trees.

According to Google, my "tree rant" reply is the *2nd* message in the
entire topic thread. Thus, unless the tree correction was in the first
message (I don't see it), I COULD NOT have seen the correction at the
time of the second reply. It did not exist yet (unless Google time-
stamped it different than your newsreader, which has not been
claimed). Your witchhunt time-line is illogical, just like your OO
evidence.

You apparently have some serious mental defect.
To spell it out to you (in 'according to Google' speak) ...

#1. The OP did *NOT USE the terms "tree" , "classification tree" or *any
other text with the word tree in it (the *1st message in the entire topic
thread.

Here is a copy of the first message of the topic (as google shows it):

(begin copy)

Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!
v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Booted Cat" <yaoziy...@xxxxxxxxx>
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
Date: 7 Feb 2007 08:00:21 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <1170864021.615170.156400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.59.219.179
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1170864039 9239 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2007
16:00:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@xxxxxxxxxx
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:00:39 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:
1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1, DynaWeb http://www.dit-
inc.us/disclaimer.php,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@xxxxxxxxxx
Injection-Info: v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=65.59.219.179;
posting-account=uM1nxwwAAADPGl3eCnViTOHFNUTYdTy2

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".

Regards,
Yao Ziyuan

(end copy)

Note this in the second paragraph:

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

In case your brain is failing you again, here is the key segment
multiple times:

"hierarchical categories by topic"
"hierarchical categories by topic"
"hierarchical categories by topic"
"hierarchical categories by topic"

You, Sir, are flat wrong. Face your wrongness like a man and
apologize.



#2. In the *5th message* in the entire topic thread, the OP replied to
your *first reply (the 2nd message)* in the entire topic thread:

"DAG is always an intuitive generalization of tree."

Which is *after* my first "tree rant" reply.

You, Sir, are flat wrong. Face your wrongness like a man and
apologize.

Regards,
Steven Perryman

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is a number an object?
    ... If I have one tree in my garden, and the emporer has one tree in his ... the difference between it an its surronding, ... The surroundings must be themselves identifiable or we would not be able to count anything in it. ... member, there is one } in any set that contain } as a member. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... The successor of every member of S is a member of S ... but the union itself may be a non-natural number ... And how about the paths of a tree? ... There is a finite binary index to any listed sequence of the form ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)
    ... An attempt was made to hijack the thread with a usual rant about trees. ... unless the tree correction was in the first ... To spell it out to you (in 'according to Google' speak) ... ... In the *5th message* in the entire topic thread, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Is a number an object?
    ... If I have one tree in my garden, and the emporer has one tree in his ... discriminable objects (objects that one can see the difference between ... the difference between it an its surronding, ... member, there is one } in any set that contain } as a member. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: oe6 address book extract
    ... This will almost certainly involve moving some people from one group ... only' people ie those peoiple that are just a member of a group and do not ... If you should not see this tree view, ... in something like excel ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6_outlookexpress)