lies about OOP

[Martijn Faassen]

Re: lies about OOP

Peter Hansen wrote:[color=blue]
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Paul McGuire wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> "Martijn Faassen" <faassen@infrae .com> wrote in message
>>> <snip - it's "Dijkstra" not "Djikstra", you dolt! :)>
>>>
>>> Yikes! (or better, "Jikes!" or even "Yijkes!"?) - my bad.
>>> And he was on faculty at UT right here in Austin, too.[/color]
>>
>> It's a very common mistake I've seen so often that for a while I
>> wondered whether his name really *was* Djikstra, but I knew he was
>> Dutch and that it couldn't be so. That the PSU picked you for its
>> disclosure is just a random coincidence, I'm sure.. :)[/color]
>
> Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.[/color]

That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care of
myself though -- Dijkstra however needs an advocate for the correct
spelling of his name in this earthly realm.

Imagine, for instance, what if he wants to egosurf, google for his own
name and finds nothing because everybody was saying Djikstra all the
time? That'd be terrible! What, they don't have google in the eternal
realm? How can it be valhalla without google? Impossible.

Regards,

Martijn

[Martijn Faassen]

Re: NO REALLY

Jive wrote:[color=blue]
> Isn't there a comp.lang.flame or something?[/color]

I've doublechecked, but I didn't see any significant flaming in this
article (and I'm generally not very tolerant of it). My PSU posting was
certainly not intended as a flame, in case that was misinterpreted.

What'd I miss?

Regards,

Martijn

[Paul McGuire]

Re: I DECLARE THIS THREAD FINISHED

"Jive" <someone@micros oft.com> wrote in message
news:lrOvd.6797 769$6p.1068049@ news.easynews.c om...[color=blue]
> Everyone keep moving. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
>[/color]

You wish! If only ending a thread were that easy - we wouldn't be hearing
about "Why is Python slower than Java?" anymore!

But I agree with Martijn (note spelling) - I didn't notice any flames in the
thread, it seemed civil enough to me.

-- Paul

[Peter Hansen]

Re: lies about OOP

Martijn Faassen wrote:[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen wrote:[color=green]
>> Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.[/color]
>
> That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care of
> myself though -- Dijkstra however needs an advocate for the correct
> spelling of his name in this earthly realm.[/color]

Then there's us Danes, with "sen" instead of "son" (as many people
think it ought to be). And I can't even claim the wrong form
sounds noticably different, making any defense seem petty.

(Darn those Norwegians, influencing people's ideas of how a
name like Hansen ought to be spelled, grumble, grumble.
If they'd just invent a cell phone that used Python, as the
Swedish have, they might deserve all that extra attention.)

;-)

-Peter

[Peter Hansen]

Re: NO REALLY

Martijn Faassen wrote:[color=blue]
> Jive wrote:[color=green]
>> Isn't there a comp.lang.flame or something?[/color]
>
> I've doublechecked, but I didn't see any significant flaming in this
> article (and I'm generally not very tolerant of it). My PSU posting was
> certainly not intended as a flame, in case that was misinterpreted.
>
> What'd I miss?[/color]

Has the PSU checked on the whereabouts of the time machine lately?

Maybe Jive took it. I did hear it had gone missing.

I could easily see this thread descending into a flame war in,
oh, about another ten posts. That would be so freaky...

-Peter

[Brian van den Broek]

Re: NO REALLY

Peter Hansen said unto the world upon 2004-12-15 17:39:[color=blue]
> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Jive wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Isn't there a comp.lang.flame or something?[/color]
>>
>>
>> I've doublechecked, but I didn't see any significant flaming in this
>> article (and I'm generally not very tolerant of it). My PSU posting
>> was certainly not intended as a flame, in case that was misinterpreted.
>>
>> What'd I miss?[/color]
>
>
> Has the PSU checked on the whereabouts of the time machine lately?
>
> Maybe Jive took it. I did hear it had gone missing.
>
> I could easily see this thread descending into a flame war in,
> oh, about another ten posts. That would be so freaky...
>
> -Peter[/color]

Without a doubt that is the most ignorant and small-minded thought that
ever has been, and ever could be, committed to words!

(My research project to build a super-cooled ultra-efficient time
machine goes poorly. To save the funding, I'm driven to fudging the
data. ;-)

Best,

Brian vdB

[Daniel T.]

Re: lies about OOP

"H. S. Lahman" <h.lahman@veriz on.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Les Hatton "Does OO sync with the way we think?", IEEE Software, 15(3),
> > p.46-54
> > "This paper argues from real data that OO based systems written in C++
> > appear to increase the cost of fixing defects significantly when
> > compared with systems written in either C or Pascal. It goes on to
> > suggest that at least some aspects of OO, for example inheritance, do
> > not fit well with the way we make mistakes."[/color]
>
> Try and find and experienced OO developer who would advocate that large,
> complex generalizations are a good practice. You can write lousy
> programs in any paradigm. The likelihood increases when you use the
> most technically deficient of all the OOPLs. (If those developers had
> used Smalltalk, I'll bet their defect rates would have been
> substantially lower even if they weren't very good OO developers.)[/color]

Careful, the paper never claims that C++ produced more defects than C or
Pascal. It only claims that the defects found in the C++ program were
more costly to fix. That is a very big difference.

However, I agree completely with the rest of your comments.

[Peter Hansen]

Re: NO REALLY

Brian van den Broek wrote:[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen said unto the world upon 2004-12-15 17:39:[color=green]
>> I could easily see this thread descending into a flame war in,
>> oh, about another ten posts. That would be so freaky...[/color]
>
> Without a doubt that is the most ignorant and small-minded thought that
> ever has been, and ever could be, committed to words![/color]

And you, sir, must be, like, one of those Nazi type people,
like that guy, uh, what was his name? er.. Godwood, Goodwin, something
like that, anyway. (Hey, Jive, you happy yet?)
[color=blue]
> (My research project to build a super-cooled ultra-efficient time
> machine goes poorly. To save the funding, I'm driven to fudging the
> data. ;-)[/color]

Mmmmmm.... fudge....

Brian, with the two paragraphs of yours that I've quoted above,
I'm happy to say that this is the first time I've ever been
completely justified in calling someone a "flaming lunatic".

;-)

[Andrew Dalke]

Re: lies about OOP

Peter Hansen:[color=blue]
> (Darn those Norwegians, influencing people's ideas of how a
> name like Hansen ought to be spelled, grumble, grumble.[/color]

And then there's my sister, a Nelson, who drove with friends
of their's, the Olsons, to visit our aunt and uncle, the Larsons,
and my grandmother, born a Hanson. Scandinavian heritage?
Det vet jag inte. :)

Sadly, none of them know Python. And my g'grandfather was
German in case you were wondering.

Andrew Dalke
dalke@dalkescie ntific.com

[Scott David Daniels]

Re: NO REALLY

Martijn Faassen wrote:[color=blue]
> It's slow and no scientific research exists in its favor! Also it
> doesn't work. Why would I need polymorphism? Lisp had all of this 50
> years ago anyway. But functional programming by the way SUX TOO! So does
> procedural programming! And structured programming SUX, GOTO all the way![/color]

Your insightful post here has led me to reflect that a Deterministic
Finite-state Automata, the core of our initial studies of computation,
while not Turing-Equivalent, is blazes fast and thoroughly understood.
Such machines (DFAs) are pure GOTO machines, and therefore incredibly
beautiful; a very sharp knife to cut through modern problems.

This, of course, means that DJIJSTRA (there, one of the J's is right)
SUX!!!!!!!

[H. S. Lahman]

Re: lies about OOP

Responding to Daniel T....
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Try and find and experienced OO developer who would advocate that large,
>>complex generalizations are a good practice. You can write lousy
>>programs in any paradigm. The likelihood increases when you use the
>>most technically deficient of all the OOPLs. (If those developers had
>>used Smalltalk, I'll bet their defect rates would have been
>>substantial ly lower even if they weren't very good OO developers.)[/color]
>
>
> Careful, the paper never claims that C++ produced more defects than C or
> Pascal. It only claims that the defects found in the C++ program were
> more costly to fix. That is a very big difference.[/color]

You're right. That's what I get for responding from memory of my
original reading of the paper. The mind is the second thing to go.


*************
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.

H. S. Lahman
hsl@pathfinderm da.com
Pathfinder Solutions -- Put MDA to Work

http://www.pathfindermda.com

blog (under constr): http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman
(888)-OOA-PATH

[Mark Nicholls]

Re: lies about OOP


"H. S. Lahman" <h.lahman@veriz on.net> wrote in message
news:Lwiwd.1573 0$sr2.7536@trnd ny02...[color=blue]
> Responding to Daniel T....
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>Try and find and experienced OO developer who would advocate that large,
> >>complex generalizations are a good practice. You can write lousy
> >>programs in any paradigm. The likelihood increases when you use the
> >>most technically deficient of all the OOPLs. (If those developers had
> >>used Smalltalk, I'll bet their defect rates would have been
> >>substantial ly lower even if they weren't very good OO developers.)[/color]
> >
> >
> > Careful, the paper never claims that C++ produced more defects than C or
> > Pascal. It only claims that the defects found in the C++ program were
> > more costly to fix. That is a very big difference.[/color]
>
> You're right. That's what I get for responding from memory of my
> original reading of the paper. The mind is the second thing to go.
>[/color]
If it claims there are more defects in C++ than in C, then I am more than
willing to believe it, I would struggle to get a 3 line c++ program to
compile let alone run.

The leap that equates C++ to OOP, and C to SP would seem to be tenuous
though.

[Steve Holden]

Re: lies about OOP

Dave Benjamin wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <mailman.7828.1 103172841.5135. python-list@python.org >, Adam DePrince wrote:
>[color=green]
>>On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 18:27, Roy Smith wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.e du> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I did not really 'get' OOP until after learning Python. The
>>>>relativel y simple but powerful user class model made more sense to
>>>>me than C++. So introducing someone to Python, where OOP is a
>>>>choice, not a mandate, is how *I* would introduce a procedural
>>>>programme r to the subject. YMMV.
>>>
>>>OOP is a choice in C++ too. You can write procedural C++ code; no
>>>need to use classes at all if you don't want to. Something like Java
>>>is a different story. Java *forces* you to use classes. Nothing
>>>exists in Java that's not part of some class.[/color]
>>
>>Static methods act like C functions. Sure, they are members of classes,
>>but in name only. Besides, just as you can use a procedural language in
>>an OO fashion with enough programmer discipline, you can write in a
>>procedural style with an OOP language with sufficient rebellion. Just
>>use one class, put everything in it and create one instance on startup.[/color]
>
>
> Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it seems like you're implying that
> procedural code is inherently unmodular. Why would just one class/instance
> suffice to represent a procedural program? I think of namespacing and code
> organization as broad concepts that cut across all styles of programming.
>[/color]
Well I can't speak for Terry, but I've observed in the past that
object-oriented system complexity can grow beyond the programmer's
ability to manage it when objects sprout too many methods.

Effectively each instance's namespace becomes a set of global variables
that the methods use to intercommunicat e. This style of OO programming
sometimes drives me nuts (IIRC it was the library modules based on
SocketServer that drove me to this conclusion).
[color=blue]
> Interestingly, Python's main unit of modularity is the "module", not the
> "class". A direct translation of a typical Python module to Java would look
> something like a Java class containing only static methods and inner classes.
> Even this would be considered rebellious within the context of ordinary Java
> programming.
>[/color]
Well Java got some things right, but one of the things it got wrongest
was the absence of functions and procedures and the consequent need to
provide class methods. Though for the life of me I don't *really* know
why I find it acceptable in Python to have to write module.func(arg s)
when I dislike having to write class.meth(args ) in Java.

perhaps-i'm-just-old-and-crotchety-ly y'rs - steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119

[Steve Holden]

Re: lies about OOP

Martijn Faassen wrote:
[color=blue]
> Peter Hansen wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Martijn Faassen wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, in any case, thanks for setting the record straight, Martjin.
>>>
>>>
>>> That of course also happens to me once every while. I can take care
>>> of myself though -- Dijkstra however needs an advocate for the
>>> correct spelling of his name in this earthly realm.[/color]
>>
>>
>>
>> Then there's us Danes, with "sen" instead of "son" (as many people
>> think it ought to be). And I can't even claim the wrong form
>> sounds noticably different, making any defense seem petty.[/color]
>
>
> Obviously -sen is the only real suffix, as it's -sen in Dutch as well,
> as in Faas-sen. :)
>[color=green]
>> (Darn those Norwegians, influencing people's ideas of how a
>> name like Hansen ought to be spelled, grumble, grumble.
>> If they'd just invent a cell phone that used Python, as the
>> Swedish have, they might deserve all that extra attention.)
>>
>> ;-)[/color]
>
>
> That's not the Swedes, it's the Finnish that did that. They typically
> don't like being mistaken for Swedes. :)
>[/color]
That's because their language is derived from Serbo-Croat. But both the
Finns and the Swedes will tell you it's the Norwegians who are
alcoholics. They're all dreadful liars, these Scandinavians ;-)

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119

[Steve Holden]

Re: I DECLARE THIS THREAD FINISHED

Paul McGuire wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Jive" <someone@micros oft.com> wrote in message
> news:lrOvd.6797 769$6p.1068049@ news.easynews.c om...
>[color=green]
>>Everyone keep moving. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
>>[/color]
>
>
> You wish! If only ending a thread were that easy - we wouldn't be hearing
> about "Why is Python slower than Java?" anymore!
>
> But I agree with Martijn (note spelling) - I didn't notice any flames in the
> thread, it seemed civil enough to me.
>
> -- Paul
>
>[/color]
I suspect Jive just got bored with the thread. Easy to do when you are
seeing the same arguments from the same people for the umpteenth time,
but when that happens I try to remember there are people joining the
group all the time, so even my rantings are new to someone.

All the same, I'd like to thank Jive for his indirect responsibility for
triggering Martijn (who, by the way, SUX) to produce his last outburst.
Very few postings do actually make me laugh out loud, but that did.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden http://www.holdenweb.com/
Python Web Programming http://pydish.holdenweb.com/
Holden Web LLC +1 703 861 4237 +1 800 494 3119