Relational-to-OOP Tax
in [OOP]
|
Prev: "OOP is Dead" article
Next: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)
From: Daniel Parker on 8 Feb 2007 09:42 On Feb 7, 4:42 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > It is also curious how Martin finds a way to work the latest software > engineering buzzwords into his book titles, dispite the fact that the > content and arguments do not change much. Curious indeed. I am sure that even RCM would take you seriously on this point, recognizing your demonstrated expertise in "content and arguments [that] do not change much" Daniel
From: topmind on 8 Feb 2007 13:10 ggroups(a)bigfoot.com wrote: > On Feb 7, 9:42 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > > Daniel Parker wrote: > > DP> For real OO hype, > DP> you'd have to go back quite a few years, to the days of JOOP, > where > DP> people were writing articles promoting commercial interests thinly > DP> disguised as technical articles. Kind of like the stuff that's > being > DP> written about SOA today. But I don't think RCM ever wrote > anything > DP> like that. You might want to backtrack on this. > > TM> Again, your implication is that because there are worse offenders > than > TM> Martin, that Martin should be let off the hook. > > >> No, that's not my implication. As far as I can tell, RCM has never > >> written anything about OO that could reasonably be regarded as hype, > >> ever. Feel free to have the last word (I know I won't get it.) > > > Well, perhaps it depends on how one defines "hype". > > 1. Well, this is what the real world seems to think the term means : > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole > > Feel free to show us how/where Robert Martin has posted about OO in a > manner consistent with the above definitions. "Hype" and "hyperbole" are not necessarily the same thing. "Hype" is slang based on "hyperbole", but a different emphasis. I already explained the problems of Martin's that lead me to call it "hype". If you don't like that word to describe those, then substitute your own instead of go into anal dictionary mode. [snip] I wish you would spend as much effort presenting and describing details of (alleged) OO benefits as you do on theses on vocab. Most word debates are boring. (There are excpetions, like "complexity" and "life", which I found engaging.) > Regards, > Steven Perryman -T-
From: topmind on 8 Feb 2007 13:16 Daniel Parker wrote: > On Feb 7, 4:42 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > > > It is also curious how Martin finds a way to work the latest software > > engineering buzzwords into his book titles, dispite the fact that the > > content and arguments do not change much. > > Curious indeed. I am sure that even RCM would take you seriously on > this point, recognizing your demonstrated expertise in "content and > arguments [that] do not change much" Gee, some of my other OO enemies call me waffling, inconsistent, etc. When one's enemies hate one for contradictory reasons, it must mean one is on to something... > > Daniel -T- oop.ismad.com
From: ggroups on 8 Feb 2007 13:41 On Feb 8, 6:10 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > ggro...(a)bigfoot.com wrote: DP> No, that's not my implication. As far as I can tell, RCM has never DP> written anything about OO that could reasonably be regarded as hype, DP>ever. Feel free to have the last word (I know I won't get it.) TM> Well, perhaps it depends on how one defines "hype". >> 1. Well, this is what the real world seems to think the term means : >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole >> Feel free to show us how/where Robert Martin has posted about OO in a >> manner consistent with the above definitions. > "Hype" and "hyperbole" are not necessarily the same thing. "Hype" is > slang based on "hyperbole", but a different emphasis. I already > explained the problems of Martin's that lead me to call it "hype". If > you don't like that word to describe those, then substitute your own > instead of go into anal dictionary mode. The definitions you were given state that hype and hyperbole mean the same thing. There is no difference in "emphasis" whatsoever. If you claim that there is a difference between the "hype" you write of, and the std english language definition, then the *burden is on you* to provide your definition for reader understanding. > [snip] Ah, you have just proved yet again that you : - cannot substantiate your claims - are too slimy to retract your claims - have not even a basic understanding of the meaning of the words that you type > I wish you would spend as much effort presenting and describing > details of (alleged) OO benefits as you do on theses on vocab. And most on comp.object wish you would spend as much effort on actually typing and posting well thought-out things as you do on attempting perpetual slimy evasions and then eventual retraction when your comments are challenged. When you understand these things, perhaps then you will be able to cogently present and argue your case (whatever it actually is). Regards, Steven Perryman
From: topmind on 8 Feb 2007 14:05
ggroups(a)bigfoot.com wrote: > On Feb 8, 6:10 pm, "topmind" <topm...(a)technologist.com> wrote: > > > ggro...(a)bigfoot.com wrote: > > DP> No, that's not my implication. As far as I can tell, RCM has > never > DP> written anything about OO that could reasonably be regarded as > hype, > DP>ever. Feel free to have the last word (I know I won't get it.) > > TM> Well, perhaps it depends on how one defines "hype". > > >> 1. Well, this is what the real world seems to think the term means : > > >>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole > > >> Feel free to show us how/where Robert Martin has posted about OO in a > >> manner consistent with the above definitions. > > > "Hype" and "hyperbole" are not necessarily the same thing. "Hype" is > > slang based on "hyperbole", but a different emphasis. I already > > explained the problems of Martin's that lead me to call it "hype". If > > you don't like that word to describe those, then substitute your own > > instead of go into anal dictionary mode. > > The definitions you were given state that hype and hyperbole mean the > same thing. There is no difference in "emphasis" whatsoever. If you > claim that > there is a difference between the "hype" you write of, and the std > english language > definition, then the *burden is on you* to provide your definition for > reader > understanding. By what reconing do you put the burden on me? Never mind. I don't want to squabble over non-technical definitions. It is usually pointless. Martin's book is *misleading*. Happy now? > > > > [snip] > > Ah, you have just proved yet again that you : > > - cannot substantiate your claims > - are too slimy to retract your claims > - have not even a basic understanding of the meaning of the words that > you type > > > > I wish you would spend as much effort presenting and describing > > details of (alleged) OO benefits as you do on theses on vocab. > > And most on comp.object wish you would spend as much effort on > actually > typing and posting well thought-out things as you do on attempting > perpetual > slimy evasions and then eventual retraction when your comments are > challenged. Where is your OO betterment evidence for biz apps? Where is your OO betterment evidence for biz apps? Where is your OO betterment evidence for biz apps? Where is your OO betterment evidence for biz apps? > > > When you understand these things, perhaps then you will be able to > cogently > present and argue your case (whatever it actually is). When you understand how to present paradigm betterment evidence, perhaps you will do so instead of start anal arguments over non- technicial definitions. Get married if you crave fighting over such trivial sh8t so bad. > > > Regards, > Steven Perryman -T- oop.ismad.com |