It's the Psychology, Stupid (Was: The reality of Topmind)
in [OOP]
|
From: topmind on 26 Feb 2007 01:04 Jeff Brooks wrote: > topmind wrote: > > OO is being forced down our throats without first proving itself. It's > > hype ruined good table-oriented tools that used to be fairly common. > > Topmind, we have had this conversation about two years ago. > > You say OO doesn't have proof. I ask for proof that supports your views. > You never provide any. You claim I repeat myself, yet you don't know how I would respond to this and counter it in advance. I believe that paradigms/languages are mostly subjective preferences. We gravitate towards those that best fit OUR MINDS (hence the handle "topmind"). My very own handle itself addresses your statement. For http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm > > If a view is bad because of a lack of proof then you views are bad as well. You are missing the big picture: subjectivity. > > > If OO'ers exaggerate about OO, I set them strait. This is not a bad > > thing. > > You exaggerate your views. You exaggerate your arguments against OO. But I am not an entire industry trying to shove myself down everyone's 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. If you claim or imply OO is better, you are obligated to prove it before forcing it as an industry-wide practice. I am not anywhere near that stage yet. I only have a crappy little website and and a bunch of people who hate me for attacking their sacred cow. OO is way overhyped and I am trying to fix that. I have to fight fire with fire at this point. > > > Years have passed ... > > Will topmind ever produce any evidence to support his views?! I doubt it. You got this part right. I cannot because software engineering is mostly about psychology, not math and science. Until the brain is reversed engineered at the neuron-level, it will remain about the very fuzzy science of pyschology. The best I can do is describe my own pyschology and why tables fit the model of my head. > > Jeff Brooks T.O.P.-Mind
From: Jeff Brooks on 26 Feb 2007 01:58 topmind wrote: > Jeff Brooks wrote: >> topmind wrote: >>> OO is being forced down our throats without first proving itself. It's >>> hype ruined good table-oriented tools that used to be fairly common. >> Topmind, we have had this conversation about two years ago. >> >> You say OO doesn't have proof. I ask for proof that supports your views. >> You never provide any. > > You claim I repeat myself, yet you don't know how I would respond to > this and counter it in advance. I claimed you wouldn't provide any proof. How can I counter it other then explaining, yet again, you have no evidence but continue to say OO people have to provide theirs?! It's a circular argument. This is our debate in a nutshell: while (true) { printf("you: OO is bad because they don't provide proof\n"); printf("me: What evidence do you have that procedural is better?\n"); } If a paradigm isn't valid without proof then both OO, and procedural are not valid!!! > I believe that paradigms/languages are mostly subjective preferences. > We gravitate towards those that best fit OUR MINDS (hence the handle > "topmind"). My very own handle itself addresses your statement. For If you believe that then why do you complain about OO all the time?! If you really believed that then you can't claim that OO is bad because from another point of view it could match their mental model. Your argument is inconsistent. > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm I looked at your site years ago. It's the same nonsensical arguments you make on here. >> If a view is bad because of a lack of proof then you views are bad as well. > > You are missing the big picture: subjectivity. If it's subjective then your arguments claiming OO is bad has no relevance. Are you arguing that your previous claims against OO are wrong because they are subjective?! >>> If OO'ers exaggerate about OO, I set them strait. This is not a bad >>> thing. >> You exaggerate your views. You exaggerate your arguments against OO. > > But I am not an entire industry trying to shove myself down everyone's > 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? .... or did you just make this up? > If you claim or imply OO is better, you are obligated to prove it > before forcing it as an industry-wide practice. I am not anywhere > near that stage yet. I only have a crappy little website and and a > bunch of people who hate me for attacking their sacred cow. You always say this. It's the same broken logic you have used for years. The status quo will remain unless someone changes it. OO is the status quo. If people with other development views can't show their way of developing software is better the status quo will remain. Are you now going to respond with the same old invalid argument "OO developers are using procedural but don't know it so procedural is the status quo"? > OO is way overhyped and I am trying to fix that. I have to fight fire > with fire at this point. It appears you're not doing a very good job of fixing it! >> Years have passed ... >> >> Will topmind ever produce any evidence to support his views?! I doubt it. > > You got this part right. I cannot because software engineering is > mostly about psychology, not math and science. Until the brain is > reversed engineered at the neuron-level, it will remain about the very > fuzzy science of pyschology. The best I can do is describe my own > pyschology and why tables fit the model of my head. So you admit you don't have a case against OO? Why do you keep arguing against OO if you don't have a valid case against it? Jeff Brooks
From: topmind on 26 Feb 2007 11:41 Jeff Brooks wrote: > topmind wrote: > > Jeff Brooks wrote: > >> topmind wrote: > >>> OO is being forced down our throats without first proving itself. It's > >>> hype ruined good table-oriented tools that used to be fairly common. > >> Topmind, we have had this conversation about two years ago. > >> > >> You say OO doesn't have proof. I ask for proof that supports your views. > >> You never provide any. > > > > You claim I repeat myself, yet you don't know how I would respond to > > this and counter it in advance. > > I claimed you wouldn't provide any proof. It is not my burden. It is the shover-down-throaters that require proof. I am not a shover. > > How can I counter it other then explaining, yet again, you have no > evidence but continue to say OO people have to provide theirs?! It is illogical and downright absurd to expect me to provide objective evidence of subjectivity. > > It's a circular argument. This is our debate in a nutshell: > > while (true) > { > printf("you: OO is bad because they don't provide proof\n"); > printf("me: What evidence do you have that procedural is better?\n"); > } > > If a paradigm isn't valid without proof then both OO, and procedural are > not valid!!! Valid? *Superiority* is the issue, not validity. You got it all wrong. Their relationship is assumed "equal or unknown until proven otherwise". > > > I believe that paradigms/languages are mostly subjective preferences. > > We gravitate towards those that best fit OUR MINDS (hence the handle > > "topmind"). My very own handle itself addresses your statement. For > > If you believe that then why do you complain about OO all the time?! I told you: it is being shoved down people's throats. It is oversold and overforced. It is grape jam trying to discredit rasberry jam. > > If you really believed that then you can't claim that OO is bad because > from another point of view it could match their mental model. > > Your argument is inconsistent. No, you just don't understand it because you don't think through the philosophical implications of it all. > > > http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm > > I looked at your site years ago. It's the same nonsensical arguments you > make on here. Such usable criticism. > > >> If a view is bad because of a lack of proof then you views are bad as well. > > > > You are missing the big picture: subjectivity. > > If it's subjective then your arguments claiming OO is bad has no relevance. Shove-ativity. > > Are you arguing that your previous claims against OO are wrong because > they are subjective?! > > >>> If OO'ers exaggerate about OO, I set them strait. This is not a bad > >>> thing. > >> You exaggerate your views. You exaggerate your arguments against OO. > > > > But I am not an entire industry trying to shove myself down everyone's > > 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. > > ... or did you just make this up? > > > If you claim or imply OO is better, you are obligated to prove it > > before forcing it as an industry-wide practice. I am not anywhere > > near that stage yet. I only have a crappy little website and and a > > bunch of people who hate me for attacking their sacred cow. > > You always say this. It's the same broken logic you have used for years. > > The status quo will remain unless someone changes it. OO is the status quo. Only in lip-service. In practical much code in OOP languages leans toward procedural. > > If people with other development views can't show their way of > developing software is better the status quo will remain. > > Are you now going to respond with the same old invalid argument "OO > developers are using procedural but don't know it so procedural is the > status quo"? Yes. Even some OO proponents agree with this. They complain how OO coders are not properly trained/mentored in OO. Most coders view OO like vegitables: They are supposed to be good for you because the doctor says so, but are not pleasent. > > > OO is way overhyped and I am trying to fix that. I have to fight fire > > with fire at this point. > > It appears you're not doing a very good job of fixing it! Who knows what it would be like without me. I see my influence here and there. There is even an Oreilly book that cites my webpage and gives the URL. Small victories are better than no victories. > > >> Years have passed ... > >> > >> Will topmind ever produce any evidence to support his views?! I doubt it. > > > > You got this part right. I cannot because software engineering is > > mostly about psychology, not math and science. Until the brain is > > reversed engineered at the neuron-level, it will remain about the very > > fuzzy science of pyschology. The best I can do is describe my own > > pyschology and why tables fit the model of my head. > > So you admit you don't have a case against OO? I do: it's overhyped and overpushed. It is pushing itself without deserving it. > > Why do you keep arguing against OO if you don't have a valid case > against it? I do: it's overhyped and overpushed. It is pushing itself without deserving it. It is oversold. > > Jeff Brooks -T-
From: Diego on 26 Feb 2007 13:09 On Feb 26, 1:41 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > Jeff Brooks wrote: > > Your argument is inconsistent. > > No, you just don't understand it because you don't think through the > philosophical implications of it all. wow! this was STRONG +__+ > > >http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm > > > I looked at your site years ago. It's the same nonsensical arguments you > > make on here. > > Such usable criticism. your site is like a preaching site > > So you admit you don't have a case against OO? > > I do: it's overhyped and overpushed. It is pushing itself without > deserving it. > > > Why do you keep arguing against OO if you don't have a valid case > > against it? > > I do: it's overhyped and overpushed. It is pushing itself without > deserving it. there is no use acting as a screaming child enough for me. topmind goes to kill file now
From: topmind on 26 Feb 2007 13:56 Diego wrote: > On Feb 26, 1:41 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > > Jeff Brooks wrote: > > > Your argument is inconsistent. > > > > No, you just don't understand it because you don't think through the > > philosophical implications of it all. > > wow! this was STRONG +__+ > > > > >http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm > > > > > I looked at your site years ago. It's the same nonsensical arguments you > > > make on here. > > > > Such usable criticism. > > your site is like a preaching site And Bertrand Meyer etc. are not? > > > > So you admit you don't have a case against OO? > > > > I do: it's overhyped and overpushed. It is pushing itself without > > deserving it. > > > > > Why do you keep arguing against OO if you don't have a valid case > > > against it? > > > > I do: it's overhyped and overpushed. It is pushing itself without > > deserving it. > > there is no use acting as a screaming child > > enough for me. topmind goes to kill file now Can't say I'll miss you either. -T-
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Complicated Frameworks (was: Relational-to-OOP Tax) Next: Social networks |