Please recommend conceptual reading
in [OOP]
|
Prev: Business Plan Education Program, Business Plan Resources Education Program
Next: Euthanasia For Pets: Making The Decision To Say Goodbye
From: topmind on 17 Jan 2008 13:47 S Perryman wrote: > topmind wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 8:20 am, S Perryman <q...(a)q.com> wrote: > > KR>I'm looking for a good book (or books) that describe the evolution of > KR>distributed objects / object automation, including OLE, Active X, COM/ > KR>DCOM, CORBA(?) and whatever else relevant. I'm a professional > KR>programmer but looking not for a "how to" manual but rather a "why > KR>this way" story. > RK>Any recommendations? TIA > > Call this #1. > > > TM>The "why"? There is NO scientific evidence for OOP. > > Call this #2. > > > >>On your way, you non english-understanding comp.object muppet. > > >>[ your usual muppet rant snipped ... ] > > > Typical: no substance, just personal insults. > > At least my "rants" talk about the topic. > > From #2, we see a rant about there being no "scientific evidence" for > OOP. > > From #1, we see that the OP is asking for books etc describing distributed > object systems (forms, evolution, why they are how they are etc) . But > *nothing* about asking for "scientific evidence" of any kind. > > You are ranting about something completely unrelated (surprise surprise) to > the OPs' request. You have not even cited any source material related to > the OPs' request. > > Off-topic. No help whatsoever. QED. You are confusing lack of specificness for details. The author did NOT say he/she wanted just fuzzy touchy-feely anecdotes either. I at least answered the science side. If he wants more specifics or does not want the science-side of the story, he can then ask. It's called communication. You view everything I do through conspiracy-colored glasses. > > On your way, you non english-understanding comp.object muppet (+1) ... -T- oop.ismad.com
From: Michel André on 17 Jan 2008 14:56 I would recommend this book Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming Clemens Szysperski http://www.amazon.com/Component-Software-Beyond-Object-Oriented-Programming/dp/0201178885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200599577&sr=8-1 I contains a fairly good comparison and description of the technologies you mention. /Michel krasicki wrote: > On Dec 20 2007, 3:29 pm, "Kurt R." <pm...(a)netscape.net> wrote: >> I'm looking for a good book (or books) that describe the evolution of >> distributed objects / object automation, including OLE, Active X, COM/ >> DCOM, CORBA(?) and whatever else relevant. I'm a professional >> programmer but looking not for a "how to" manual but rather a "why >> this way" story. >> >> Any recommendations? TIA > > The Microsoft Systems Journal which was a subscription magazine that > included numerous articles of how the Microsoft code base came > together would be a good reference as well (say, 1988 - 1995). Once > Java kicks in about 1995, Microsoft's contribution to the OO world > begins to ebb and fade. > > In the old days some AT&T softwrae engineers also evaluated CORBA, > OLE, and some of the server middleware of the period and had some nice > write-ups. Not sure how much of that survived the past decade or so. > It used to be online on the research pages, I think. > > Some of the research firm reports are probably collectable as well > (Gantner, et al) for overviews of specific technologies including OO. > You'll have to search EBay or something of the sort to find them > though. > > - krasicki
From: S Perryman on 17 Jan 2008 16:35
topmind wrote: > S Perryman wrote: TM>Typical: no substance, just personal insults. TM>At least my "rants" talk about the topic. >>From #2, we see a rant about there being no "scientific evidence" for OOP. >> From #1, we see that the OP is asking for books etc describing distributed >>object systems (forms, evolution, why they are how they are etc) . But >>*nothing* about asking for "scientific evidence" of any kind. >>You are ranting about something completely unrelated (surprise surprise) to >>the OPs' request. You have not even cited any source material related to >>the OPs' request. >>Off-topic. No help whatsoever. QED. > You are confusing lack of specificness for details. And you are confusing the meaning of words in the English language with ... God knows. > The author did NOT > say he/she wanted just fuzzy touchy-feely anecdotes either. Please feel free to show us which of the publications (preferably page/chapter listings) cited for the OP are "fuzzy touchy-feely anecdotes". > I at least answered the science side. Please feel free to show us what specific "science side" you have answered. If he wants more specifics or does > not want the science-side of the story, he can then ask. It's called > communication. > You view everything I do through conspiracy-colored glasses. Nothing you have posted in this thread can be considered an instance/ example of conspiracy. So (again) you do not understand the English language. So where does that leave us ?? Of course (silly me) ... On your way, you non english-understanding comp.object muppet (+2) ... |