Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- From: S Perryman <q@xxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:03:05 +0100
topmind wrote:
S Perryman wrote:
topmind wrote:
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) .
You good, me bad, blah blah blah....
I have had hobbies that I am not particularly good it.
But unlike you :
1. I know this to be so.
2. I don't lecture or demand things from/to others far superior to me in
that hobby. Or claim that I know things that they don't without being able
to conclusively show this is the case.
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.
Fine, it's a stalemate and both should be promoted.
OO continually promotes procedural.
Because OO has *foundations* in procedural.
Or in Christian terms : "why send Satan to denounce Satan ?" .
On those foundations OO brings things that the procedural paradigm
cannot trivially provide : type substitutability, inheritance,
homogeneity through a state-based model etc.
The cross-fertilisation and influences between OO and procedural are
well documented. The things that arose in parallel, where one influenced
the other etc.
But OO proponents and authors keep implying OO is better.
You continually make this claim, but you can never produce the reams
of citations to such claims (in literature, or on comp.object) .
So not only do you have a hobby that you are so poor at, you actually
have had to invent the hobby yourself.
I'm not sure what psychologists/psychiatrists would make of this (it
reminds me of a joke I once heard where a comedienne said she had imaginary
friends, but they all hated her :-) ) .
Go ahead and stay with your
shanty-town hack-a-class pointer-happy OOP if you really want.
Will do.
In comp.object, which is a newsgroup specifically for that purpose.
The question is (now that you have been confronted with the painful truth)
whether you will now :
- Go from here knowing that a stale-mate exists.
One that you so obviously do not have the competence to break in your
favour.
- Continue as you have for the last 7 years with the same mentally
deluded demands of comp.object .
We won't have to wait long for the answer will we ...
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?
- From: adaworks
- Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- References:
- Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- From: S Perryman
- Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- From: topmind
- Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- Prev by Date: Software Engineering is Rot (Was: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?)
- Next by Date: Re: Software Engineering is Rot (Was: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?)
- Previous by thread: Re: Software Engineering is Rot (Was: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?)
- Next by thread: Re: Is Procedural Paradigm a basis of OO Paradigm?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|