Re: A Design Problem
- From: "Daniel T." <daniel_t@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 22:41:55 -0400
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alternative example. When one ant lays a pheromone trail, it
doesn't tell any other ants to do anything, yet laying that trail
is exactly what is needed.
Needed for *what*? Answer this, and you will have the postcondition.
The ant needed nothing. That is why there is no postcondition. The ant
expects nothing, it is simply sending a message, as it was programmed to
do.
Differently to people, computer objects have no freedom of will.
What does that even mean? You are throwing around meaningless
phrases as if they are important in some way.
Hey, the analogy to a human telling something to another human was
not mine, but yours.
I made no analogy that involved humans. In fact, I've been using ants in
my analogies throughout this thread.
I just pointed out that this analogy is flawed, because any possible
difference between:
1. ordering to do something and
2. informing about something (in order to cause an effect of doing
something particular)
The problem with your understanding is in the part in parentheses. The
ant doesn't lay the pheromone trail in order to cause an effect or do
anything at all. If no other ant ever follows that trail, it is of no
concern of the ant laying it.
To get back to a programming example. A Subject sends a message to its
Observers when its state changes. Does the Subject do this to cause an
effect? Of course not. Does the Subject do this to do something in
particular? Of course not. The Subject is simply sending the message,
what the receiver of the message does with that information is its own
business. The Subject is completely unconcerned and unconnected with
anything that might result. Maybe nothing happens at all, or maybe the
state of every other object in the system changes, the Subject doesn't
know or care.
is ultimately based on the notion of [free] will, which cannot be
applied to objects. Without free will 1. and 2. are just equivalent.
You are being ridiculous, "free will" is wholly meaningless, nothing I
have said is based on it.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: A Design Problem
- References:
- A Design Problem
- From: Mousam
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Nick Keighley
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Daniel T.
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Daniel T.
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Daniel T.
- Re: A Design Problem
- From: Dmitry A. Kazakov
- A Design Problem
- Prev by Date: Re: A Design Problem
- Next by Date: Re: A Design Problem
- Previous by thread: Re: A Design Problem
- Next by thread: Re: A Design Problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|