Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- From: S Perryman <q@xxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 23:44:14 +0100
topmind wrote:
S Perryman wrote:
topmind wrote:
LS>I was curious about the activity on comp.object a few days ago, so I
LS>looked up the group's statistics on google:
LS>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.object/about?hl=en
LS>The aforementioned poster is listed as comp.object's all time poster.
LS>I make no comment on this other than I think that it is... interesting.
It is my use of non-OO technologies that allow me to be so
productive :-)
No, more supporting evidence IMHO of the mental problems that I have often
claimed you seem to be afflicted with (delusion etc). Another quick
analysis of the stats has your infestation of comp.object around the
2000 time-frame.
Given that Robert Martin has been posting on comp.object since the
early 1990s, you have managed to post as much as he has over 15+ yrs
in half the time. Yet I have yet to see anything from you (has anyone ?? )
that can even vaguely be deemed to be beneficial to comp.object as
intended by its Usenet charter.
Debunking OO fanatics is my hobby. Some bowl, some keep gardens, some
sail boats, and some of us debunk OO.
The problem is, you are have a hobby that you are piss-poor at.
And after all the time you have put in, you don't seem to realise this.
But then, that is one major point of a hobby. One doesn't have to actually
be any good at the activity. It is the participation and not the competence
that counts.
Well, IMHO comp.object can thank you for your honesty.
Because we can understand you a little bit better now.
You have a hobby you are absolutely useless at. But no one here can fault
your perservance in spite of this fact (re the rate of postings on the same
topic) .
As far as "beneficial", you only consider preaching from fellow OO
zealots "beneficial". In that sense, I could never pass your test. I
am like an evolutionist in a creationist forum.
No. You have it the wrong way round.
Tis you who appears as a USA Bible-belt creationist in an evolutionist
forum.
You have no objective evidence that OOP is better.
And you have no objective evidence that "procedural/relational" is not worse. Which is a stalemate. Which (for normal people) leads to end of
proceedings until new information is available.
But as we've now established, you're not very good at your hobby.
Until you get some,
I will defend non-OO technologies when I see them being trashed.
1. Which "non-OO" technologies are you specifically defending.
2. Whatever your definition of "trashed" actually is, please feel free to
cite explicit references to where this has actually been done on comp.object .
You attack me personally BECAUSE you have no evidence.
Bashing people is for those without evidence.
Bashing people is for those without evidence.
Bashing people is for those without evidence.
Bashing people is for those without evidence.
You are not very good at your hobby. After 7+ yrs I suggest you
get a new one.
You are not very good at your hobby. After 7+ yrs I suggest you
get a new one.
You are not very good at your hobby. After 7+ yrs I suggest you
get a new one.
// repeat ad-nauseum
Regards,
Steven Perryman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- From: topmind
- Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- Next by Date: for rudyard: very high caliber pictures - ajwe - (1/1)
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
