Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: Chris Sonnack on 25 Aug 2005 15:18 Robert C. Martin writes: > Sort of. Fuzzy logic is 'set' logic where objects have 'partial' > membership in sets. So, Captain Kirk is an 85% member of the set of > all good guys, and a 15% member of the set of all bad guys. And, insofaras "85%" and "15%" and "good guys" and "bad guys" are all (in this context) well-defined (not fuzzy), we're back where we started. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris(a)Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
From: Chris Sonnack on 25 Aug 2005 15:16 topmind writes: >> Obviously, but that has nothing to do with this discussion other >> than to show you just aren't understanding a lot of what I'm saying. > > Maybe not. No maybe about it. It's abundantly clear. > All I know is that it appears to be bullshit. Then you don't know squat. I'm tired of debating with someone who, as far as I can tell, is either deliberately trolling or is totally clueless about what real programmers actually do and how real programs are actually written. You do appear to be what someone said early on: just a report writer. One step above a "power user". One thing is quite clear: you AIN'T a real programmer. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris(a)Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________|
From: topmind on 25 Aug 2005 21:44 Chris Sonnack wrote: > topmind writes: > > >> Obviously, but that has nothing to do with this discussion other > >> than to show you just aren't understanding a lot of what I'm saying. > > > > Maybe not. > > No maybe about it. It's abundantly clear. > > > All I know is that it appears to be bullshit. > > Then you don't know squat. > > I'm tired of debating with someone who, as far as I can tell, is > either deliberately trolling or is totally clueless about what > real programmers actually do and how real programs are actually > written. Real programmers know that the real world does not change in a hierarchical way. Only naive newbies or stubburn tree-huggers think it does. Like I keep saying, even many die-hard OO proponents agree with me that trees and inheritance are oversold. > You do appear to be what someone said early on: just > a report writer. One step above a "power user". "Custom business applications". I did not say "report writer", although that is often part of it. Anyhow, report writing is not necessarily simpler or harder than other domains. If it was all easy and simple then most of it would be packaged into boxed software that would do it all with a few clicks. Each domain of programming has easy and hard parts. None is necessarily all easy or all hard and I am not going to insult programmers in one domain just because I don't like it. Business applications are often difficult because the "shape" of the application is influenced by human personalities more than say the laws of physics or chemistry. Thus, the model does not stay still because managers, marketers, and customers are fickle and hard to pin down. Even report builders are often on the phone for hours trying to clarify and codify exactly what the requester wants. They need the ability to turn vague "street language" into precise requirements without confusing the user. They need to understand complex database schemas and how those schemas do and don't model the domain (industry/domain) at hand. You appear to be turning to argument-by-intimidation instead of presenting evidence that backs your stance. If I was as retarded as you allege, you should be able to wipe me all over the floor with good evidence and examples. INSTEAD YOU COME UP SHORT and turn to insults instead. Sour grapes? You have not presented a very good case that trees are the ideal data structure for almost everything. I have agreed that on a small scale they are often useful. But on a large scale, structures tend to "degenerate" to graphs, and I allege that sets better handle such than modified or rigged or forced trees. I can also agree that perhaps it is subjective. Trees that are modified (unpure) to handle the deviations may still be better than sets to some brains. I won't dictate how your brain works best. Trees *can* model just about everything with enough compromises; I just don't like all those compromises and find sets more flexible than compromised trees. Most of your complaints against sets appear to be that you don't have a feel for how to navigate them. You seem to fear them out of ignorance. Perhaps you should be forced to be a "mere report writer" for a few years so that you get comfortable querying non-tree information from different perspectives. That way you won't feel as lost outside of the tree forest. > > One thing is quite clear: you AIN'T a real programmer. And you ain't a real evidence presenter. > > > -- > |_ CJSonnack <Chris(a)Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | -T-
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 26 Aug 2005 03:53 On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:18:31 -0500, Chris Sonnack wrote: > Robert C. Martin writes: > >> Sort of. Fuzzy logic is 'set' logic where objects have 'partial' >> membership in sets. So, Captain Kirk is an 85% member of the set of >> all good guys, and a 15% member of the set of all bad guys. > > And, insofaras "85%" and "15%" and "good guys" and "bad guys" are > all (in this context) well-defined (not fuzzy), we're back where > we started. Not at all! 1. A side note. Robert's example is not quite precise. In general case X 0.85 in "good guys" does imply X 0.15 in "bad guys". To have this one must presume that "bad guys" = not "good guys", which is, well, depends... (:-)) 2. "good guys" is of course fuzzy. Technically either Captain Kirk or "good guys" or both should be fuzzy to get 0.85 instead of 1 or 0. Well, assuming Captain Kirk being a real man... (:-)) 3. But let's forget it and say "good guys" is crisp. That wouldn't change anything because Captain Kirk is still 0.85 in it. What does it *mean* to be 0.85 good? This meaning is the essence. It is uncertainty you cannot deal with in a crisp framework. You can do it only symbolically by postulating existence of uncertainty (either as randomness (0.85 = probability of), or as fuzziness (0.85 = possibility of), or as other set measure.) But you cannot look into that measure. You have to carry it with all the time. And all the answers will be in the terms of that measure. So in the end after all manipulations you still have: "it is 0.85 right." And? Is right or wrong? See? It is insoluble. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Chris Sonnack on 26 Aug 2005 14:21
Dmitry A. Kazakov writes: >>> Sort of. Fuzzy logic is 'set' logic where objects have 'partial' >>> membership in sets. So, Captain Kirk is an 85% member of the set of >>> all good guys, and a 15% member of the set of all bad guys. >> >> And, insofaras "85%" and "15%" and "good guys" and "bad guys" are >> all (in this context) well-defined (not fuzzy), we're back where >> we started. > > Not at all! > > 1. A side note. Robert's example is not quite precise. In general case X > 0.85 in "good guys" does imply X 0.15 in "bad guys". To have this one must > presume that "bad guys" = not "good guys", which is, well, depends... (:-)) Agreed. One can have an "unknowns" group (or several). > 2. "good guys" is of course fuzzy. Technically either Captain Kirk or > "good guys" or both should be fuzzy to get 0.85 instead of 1 or 0. Well, > assuming Captain Kirk being a real man... (:-)) Right. But at some point the knife comes down and the system decides that this fuzzy guy, Jim, has 85% membership in this fuzzy group "good guys". THAT is not fuzzy. > 3. But let's forget it and say "good guys" is crisp. That wouldn't change > anything because Captain Kirk is still 0.85 in it. What does it *mean* to > be 0.85 good? Simple. It means you're good most, but not all, of the time. (True for most of us, I imagine.) > This meaning is the essence. It is uncertainty you cannot deal with in > a crisp framework. You can do it only symbolically by postulating existence > of uncertainty (either as randomness (0.85 = probability of), or as > fuzziness (0.85 = possibility of), or as other set measure.) But you cannot > look into that measure. You have to carry it with all the time. And all > the answers will be in the terms of that measure. So in the end after all > manipulations you still have: "it is 0.85 right." And? Is right or wrong? > See? It is insoluble. But, like probability functions in Quantum Mechanics, as some point, to be useful, you have to "collapse" the function into a decision. I can no longer quote from memory accurately, but to paraphrase Jim T. Kirk himself, "TODAY we *decide* to be good." (Tomorrow I might phaser you. :) And computers--that is to say binary--can easily carry our 0.85 symbols around until we need to do a calculation that determines whether Kirk pushes the phaser button or the nice guy button. So,... I still not convinced that Shannon does not apply. -- |_ CJSonnack <Chris(a)Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| |