The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-OrientedProgramming)
in [OOP]
|
Prev: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)
Next: looking for design patterns of interacting state machine
From: S Perryman on 25 Feb 2007 06:51 topmind wrote: > S Perryman wrote: >>"topmind" <topmind(a)technologist.com> wrote in message >>news:1171920645.076368.183030(a)a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... >>>Let me get this strait. You are saying that *all* false statements >>>imply lying??? >>According to many english language definitions of the term, a liar is >>one who states something untrue with a particular intent. When one >>looks at these definitions, the common description of intent is to >>deceive, to evade. >>We certainly see the latter part matches you perfectly in the context >>of this thread. But what about the first part (see below) ... ?? > You didn't answer the question. You "evaded" it. You really need to learn to read english. A liar states something untrue with a specific intent (deceit, evasion) . That is the distinction. Or more precisely : lying implies false statements. > Nor have you proven > that I intentionally knew that "hierarchy" and "tree" were different. > I honestly thought they were the same thing. Now there is one less word to appear in text that you can use as an excuse for your tree rants. > Enough already. Find > something about paradigms to make an issue about, not words. I don't > come here for a she-said-he-said marriage spat, but to talk about > software design. ROTFLMAO !!! No, you do no such thing. You come here to rant. Not to learn, not to teach. But that aside ... The reason you become embroiled in these spats (which I have had no trouble in prolonging) is because you are lazy, and post without thinking. If you took more care on these aspects you would then not have to display your more cowardly and disingenuous traits (which as a rule always seem to occur when you state something that is untrue and then refuse to immediately retract them when challenged) . As I have repeatedly stated, you wonder why comp.object treats you as a joke. Well wonder no more. Take more time and care before you reply to a posting (a tip for you : if unsure ask people for clarification as to what you think they may be writing about) . >>We know that the statement you made about what the OP wrote >>is untrue. That is fact. We now need to understand the intent/reason >>for your doing so. >>We did subsequently learn that you did not understand the meaning of >>the word "hierarchy" (do you now ?? ) . >>If you wish to state that the reason for your perenial tree rant to the >>OP was due to this lack of understanding of english language (nobody >>is perfect) , I will have to retract the claim that you are a liar. > Again, I did not know that "hierarchy" and "tree" were different. If > that makes me ignorant of some aspects of English, so be it. I am a > software developer, Jim, not an English teacher. (I bet most other > techies don't know that either.) Here is another tip for you : When you see a posting, and some text triggers your uncontrollable urge to post a tree rant, try to find out what the text actually means (ie is there any relationship to the topic of trees) before pressing the send button ... Regards, Steven Perryman
From: S Perryman on 25 Feb 2007 15:49 topmind wrote: > S Perryman wrote: >>You really need to learn to read english. >>A liar states something untrue with a specific intent (deceit, evasion) . >>That is the distinction. >>Or more precisely : lying implies false statements. > But the *reverse* is not necessarily true. That is what you don't seem > to get. Oh, I understand the difference. But you do obviously do not. Hence your inability to adjust your behaviour and the perceptions thereof (see below) . >>The reason you become embroiled in these spats (which I have had no >>trouble in prolonging) is because you are lazy, and post without thinking. > I could say the same about you. You didn't fully investigation the > situation before calling me a "liar", for example. Your emotions got > the best of you. Not so. You have lied because of what you claimed the OP *explicitly wrote* . You were informed from the outset of this fact. But your disingenuous attempts to evade admitting this (which BTW you have yet to admit) is the trait of a liar. So though eventually having been given the lesser of two evils (ignorance of the meaning of a word) , you have displayed some unsavoury behaviour which Usenet has recorded for posterity. >>As I have repeatedly stated, you wonder why comp.object treats you as a >>joke. Well wonder no more. Take more time and care before you reply to a >>posting (a tip for you : if unsure ask people for clarification as to what >>you think they may be writing about) . > It is because I attack their Sacred cOOw. People get defensive when > their pet paradigms and languages are attacked because they like them > or depend on them for mula. C++ people often attack Java because they > saw their market demand dwindling, for example. It takes a long time > to learn nuances of C++ well, but the pay premium for such duration is > being attacked by other systems languages. LOL. The above is just more of your deluded mind. If you want to debate against OO in a cogent manner, I suggest you look long and hard at Frederik Bertilssons' postings on comp.object . See and learn the lessons, and then get some credibility from others here. But there is one thing that interests me. You are always loath to state what specific system developments you have worked on. I have a related question for you : Have you ever been displaced (forcefully or by choice) from a project/ employer because of their insistence on using OO development, and your reluctance to do so ?? Regards, Steven Perryman
From: Jeff Brooks on 25 Feb 2007 23:52
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. If a view is bad because of a lack of proof then you views are bad as well. > 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. Years have passed ... Will topmind ever produce any evidence to support his views?! I doubt it. Jeff Brooks |