Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: Patrick May on 13 Jun 2005 04:31 "topmind" <topmind(a)technologist.com> writes: > I am sorry, but I am not releasing my wiki code anytime > soon. Besides, I didn't make any claims, you did. Two paradigms are > considered equal or unknown until objectively proven otherwise. Interesting. It hasn't taken you as long as usual to revert to form. You only managed two or three postings where you seemed genuinely interested in a discussion of polymorphism before reverting to vacuous assertions and outright falsehoods (for the record, the vast majority of Robert Martin's articles are not about device drivers and I have not made any claims in this thread). > How about we start with some smaller examples: How about you demonstrate that you really want to discuss the topic and not just score debating points in your own mind. You claim to have written a Wiki based on RDBMS technology. You suggest that polymorphism is a less useful technique than those you used. Show what you mean through comparison with FitNesse. Show that you actually understand the technology you are constantly (and thus far baselessly) criticizing. In short, show that you are something other than the pathetic little troll you have proven yourself to be in the past. Sincerely, Patrick ------------------------------------------------------------------------ S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO | systems design and implementation. pjm(a)spe.com | (C++, Java, Common Lisp, Jini, CORBA, UML)
From: Gerry Quinn on 13 Jun 2005 07:58 In article <42AC5DF5.D170870A(a)plano.net>, richmond(a)plano.net says... > On page 13, Rule 6, Article II says: "Castling is momentarily prevented > if a) the King is in check (Rule 10), b) the square which the King must > cross is occupied, c) the square which the King must cross is attacked by > a chessman of the opponent, d) the square which the King will occupy is > is attacked by a chessman of the opponent, or e) any chessman occupies a > square along the rank between the King and the Rook towards which the > King will move" Actually I wouldn't have got that right, so, because it would not have occurred to me that you can still castle queen-side even if your opponent controls the queen's knight's square. Maybe I'd have thought of it, but my mind just thinks 'intervening squares'. I think I'd probably get it right in gameplay, but not if I were just writing a function to check whether castling is allowed. - Gerry Quinn
From: Gerry Quinn on 13 Jun 2005 08:01 In article <42AB131D.FB86BF31(a)yahoo.com>, cbfalconer(a)yahoo.com says... > Memory sizes etc. are getting to the point where it may be feasible > to catalog all known openings for some reasonable number of moves, > and discover all transpositions. What is needed is a compact, yet > usable, board/position representation, with a list of antecedents, > and an efficient hash of that data. Well, commercial chess programs do that, and they also use hashing in analysis of middlegame positions. Your plain old alpha-beta minimax and material evaluation will get you a long way in many games, but chess programs are a specialised genre and they use a lot of more sophisticated methods. - Gerry Quinn
From: Gerry Quinn on 13 Jun 2005 08:12 In article <1118546740.145313.205320(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, topmind(a)technologist.com says... > Jeff Brooks wrote: > > OO is the standard right now. > > That is hogwash. Most developers do not use OO, just OO languages. Since OO is NOT about either inheritance trees or polymorphism, developers who use neither may still be using OO. - Gerry Quinn
From: Rob Thorpe on 13 Jun 2005 09:43
Phlip wrote: > Rob Thorpe wrote: > > > My point is, it is not necessary to have polymorphism, inheritance or > > jump tables to bind code and data into an object. All that is > > necessary is that the two things are presented together. > > The first time in this thread I said "jump-tables" I said "or the > equivalent". > > You _do_ mean "bind at runtime", right? Yes. I was saying that it's not necessary to have data and code bound at runtime to have object. It could be done at compile time. > > What does the Liskov substitution principle have to do with anything? > > It's co-axiomatic with the fOO polymorphism definition. You could start with > one or the other. Can you show how it is? I don't see how it's related. |