Re: It's the Psychology, Stupid (Was: The reality of Topmind)

On Mar 1, 9:41 am, Kreeg <k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
topmind wrote:
karl.wet...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:41 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jeff Brooks wrote:
> > > But I am not an entire industry trying to shove myself down
throat as the "best and only". You got Booch, Meyer, Martin, and
Fowler out there writing books and books about how great OOP is,
bashing procedural and relational left and right.
I've never heard them bash procedural, or relational. Can you provide
quotes, or any evidence of this?
So you are claiming that all these authors do not promote and hype OO
over procedural and relational? Is that really your claim? I will only
give specifics if you first commit. You cannot fish just to see what
is out there.
Yes, they promote OO. How supprising is that in a book regarding OO? I
never seen them mention procedural or relational in their books more
than a parenthesis or foot note.

I've given some explicit examples with page numbers from Meyer's book
in a nearby message. I've seen it in other books, but don't have the
page numbers right now.

Please understand there is a very big diffrence between promoting
something and bashing its counterpart. I don't automatically condem or
bash the carpet owners, nor the vaccum industry, by stating "I think
it's great that I can just wipe the dirt of my hardwood floor with a
moist rag".

Meyer's style is clear bashing, to me. Other OO books are more subtle,
but still do it.

Topmind, I actually enjoy having you here. It is always good to have
someone pulling the rope on the other end. Think different and all
that crap, you know. I respect and appreciate you helping out. But if
you want to be considered serious by more people than me you really
need to mellow down a bit and stop attacking everything and anything.

I attack ideas, not people. But I cannot say the same for my
counterparts. (I do attack people *if* they attack me first, but I
otherwise try hard to avoid insulting persons first.) If somebody
brags about OO, I will remind them about either flaws in their claim,
or lack of evidence. I do not do it in a mean-spirited way (that I am
aware of). If you have problems with my style of criticism, then point
it out *when* and where it happens and together we can find a nicer
way to say it. I don't claim to be an expert diplomatic beyond
*trying* to be fair-handed.

If you don't want criticism of OO to happen, then GET some solid
evidence that does not fall under scrutiny. It is that simple.

A paradigm does not deserve to imply itself superior until first it
gets scientific or mathematical proof of such.

I see nothing wrong about pointing out dubious claims when they happen
here. If that is a "sin", I am sorry, I don't see how it is bad.

OOP is a lot like Creationism: it bashes evolution for having
(alleged) problems, but has no evidence of itself. Psuedoscience is
bad regardless of whether it is creationism or OOP superiority claims.


Wow. Those are some broad brush strokes you're painting with there, T.

Fact is, nearly everyone is guilty of setting up strawmen of the
opposing viewpoint when trying to present their case. Meyer seems to be
guilty of that in the passages you quote, and you most certainly are
guilty of it in a lot of your arguments. You seem to take offense when
OOers do it, though. <shrug>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In informal discussions, I admit I probably exaggerate a bit, or a
least leave out a lot of caveats. BUT if I was writing a book, I would
take more care to make sure the assumptions and statements about them
are clean, traceable, fair, and accurate. The "rules" for books are
different than the rules for usenet.