Psychology, Psychology, Psychology

Post #152,192 by tablizer 4/22/04 2:53:57 AM Reply	Psychology, Psychology, Psychology The vast majority of OO evidence you guys give leads to psychology, not math. I don't/can't question that OO fits your own head better, however that may not extrapolate to other people. Admit it. Your OO evidence is psychology and only psychology. (And speculative, inconsistent psychology at that.) You don't have less lines of code, less places that need change per typical change request (unless you have a biased change list), etc. Nothing to measure. Even though rockets are complex, we can measure their payload, thrust, accuracy, explosions per mile, etc. We don't have that with OO. It just looks pretty to you and makes you feel warm inside. THATS IT! The endorphine metric. No numbers. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,237 by ben_tilly 4/22/04 2:28:43 PM Reply	And what else would you EXPECT? Programs are written and need to be understood by humans, not mathematical formulas. Of course the process of human comprehension and understanding is what is going to be relevant. That's been true for ages. Go read the classic [link\|http://www.acm.org/classics/oct95/\|Go To Statement Considered Harmful] and notice that it is all about psychology and understanding. Further note that plenty of supporters of using goto liberally were happy to talk about how goto fit their psychology. They are wrong - even people who like reaching for goto will drown in the resulting mess - but doing things poorly in a familiar way felt more comfortable than doing things well in an unfamiliar way. What parallels should be drawn to the subject of OO programming is left to the imagination of the reader. Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,246 by tablizer 4/22/04 3:28:34 PM Reply	Goto's and OO both share INconsistency Further note that plenty of supporters of using goto liberally were happy to talk about how goto fit their psychology. They are wrong I have never seen an objective comparision/study of goto fans versus block fans WRT productivity. If you know of one, please let me see it. Otherwise, you are only speculating. I suspect their development was just as fast as blockers, but not as fast when reading other's code. This is because there were no accepted lists of "goto patterns" ever developed. Each experienced goto'er developed their own patterns with no known effort to consolidate them. (More on patterns later.) Plus, they were never able to explain their philosophy in detail, something they have in common with OO'ers. Block statements are generally considered more consistent from programmer-to-programmer, and nesting of blocks provides visual cues to the nature of the flow that goto's have no identifiable counter-part. I have never heard/read a goto fan claim there is a clear visual component to goto's. (I suppose you could draw lines with pens, but that is an extra step.) Then again, I have not seen many attempts to document the thinking process of goto fans. What parallels should be drawn to the subject of OO programming is left to the imagination of the reader. That OO is basically navigational databases of the 60's resurrected as Dawn of the Dead zombies with a new name, and that navigational is the Goto of structuring because it lacks the consistency of relational, and thus parellels the consistency problem that goto's had (see above). Almost every OO fan's design is significantly different than another's. The Design Pattern movement is an attempt to remedy this, but is as futile as an attempt to form Goto patterns. Second, as the same information has to be involved in multiple patterns, you still end up with a mess. The best solution is a relational database, not yet more overlapped goofy code patterns. Relational is like code blocks and OO is like goto's: Spehgetti pointers. Goto's are just a big messy graph of flow, and OO is a big messy graph of relationship pointers. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,251 by ben_tilly 4/22/04 4:23:30 PM Reply	And there is one reader's imagination... To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,270 by tablizer 4/22/04 6:18:16 PM Reply	Dr. Codd was hallucinating? He saw the problems with the navigational DB's and sought to clean them up. He tossed pointers and path hopping and replaced it with relational algebra ("table math"). OO proponents complain that behavior is now integrated into modern versions of navigational structures, and so they are allegedly different and better. But, they are not. Behavior can also be put in tables (AKA Control Tables), but I often find that the relationship between behavior and data is too often not strong enough to justify it that often. It would help things a bit, but not revolutionary. OO dogma over-couples behavior and data for the sake of dogma itself I believe, not out of any natural affinity or relationship, at least not found in "business objects". ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,272 by jb4 4/22/04 6:27:08 PM Reply	Re: Dr. Codd was hallucinating? Wasn't he the one who came up with the concept of the Object Database? jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #152,274 by Another Scott 4/22/04 6:38:44 PM Reply	Doesn't look like it. [link\|http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/People/clamen/OODBMS/Manifesto/htManifesto/Manifesto.html\|The OO Database System Manifesto]'s Introduction: Whereas Codd's original paper [Codd 70] gave a clear specification of a relational database system (data model and query language), no such specification exists for object-oriented database systems [Maier 89]. We are not claiming here that no complete object-oriented data model exists, indeed many proposals can be found in the literature (see [Albano et al. 1986], [L\\'ecluse and Richard 89], [Carey et al. 88] as examples), but rather that there is no consensus on a single one. Opinion is slowly converging on the gross characteristics of a family of object-oriented systems, but, at present, there is no clear consensus on what an object-oriented system is, let alone an object-oriented database system. The second characteristic of the field is the lack of a strong theoretical framework. To compare object-oriented programming to logic programming, there is no equivalent of [Van Emdem and Kowalski 76]. The need for a solid underlying theory is obvious: the semantics of concepts such as types or programs are often ill defined. The absence of a solid theoretical framework, makes consensus on the data model almost impossible to achieve. [...] It is important to agree now on a definition of an object-oriented database systems. As a first step towards this goal, this paper suggests characteristics that such systems should possess. We expect that the paper will be used as a straw man, and that others will either invalidate or confirm the points mentioned here. Note that this paper is not a survey of the state of the art on OODBS technology and do not pretend to assess the current status of the technology, it merely proposes a set of definitions. Just hoping to fan the flames to get more light than heat this time around. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,280 by ben_tilly 4/22/04 8:04:59 PM Reply	It was a reference to an earlier post Specifically this one, What parallels should be drawn to the subject of OO programming is left to the imagination* of the reader.* Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #152,271 by jb4 4/22/04 6:25:45 PM Reply	But in the immortal words of Ringo: "But I don't HAAAAVE an imagination!" jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #152,290 by tablizer 4/22/04 9:14:12 PM Reply	Goto's are a Rorschach test: we see what we hate in it ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #152,316 by pwhysall 4/23/04 1:54:18 AM Reply	Go program in DCL, then. GOTO is all ya got :) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #152,319 by tablizer 4/23/04 3:07:46 AM Reply	I think you missed my point ________________ oop.ismad.com

Welcome to IWETHEY!