derth of more applicable examples

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #152,111

4/21/04 5:18:59 PM

4/21/04 5:49:55 PM

derth of more applicable examples

How would including issues not addressed by dynamic polymorphism improve the illustration of the implementation of dynamic polymorphism. It would just cloud the issue.

I was only addressing the practicality of the examples, not the demonstration of dynamic polymorphism. My general complaint is a derth of more applicable examples. Shapes, animals, stacks, and device drivers can only take one so far.

However, regarding your rants: if you ever decide to expand that People-Type thought experiment into a real example (real and complete working code), then let me know. I would love to compare.

I haven't requested working code from OO'ers for that. Even a general skeleton would be a start. We can flesh out more later. Working OO code is often too bloated for my tastes anyhow.

BTW, I have not found a satisfactory p/r solution to the "employee types" problem either. It is just that OO is not an improvement.

________________
oop.ismad.com

Edited by tablizer April 21, 2004, 05:49:55 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #152,419

Picture of JimWeirich

4/23/04 7:56:30 PM

Re: derth of more applicable examples

TM: I was only addressing the practicality of the examples, not the demonstration of dynamic polymorphism. My general complaint is a derth of more applicable examples. Shapes, animals, stacks, and device drivers can only take one so far.

Well, it is apparent that you think you people-type example has legs. If so, make a real example out of it. Specify some requirements so some code can be written. Shoot, if you don't want to write the p/r code, I'll do it for you.

If not, its time to take down that page because it is obvious that you are merely arguing against a strawman (i.e. OO design that only the inexperienced would propose).

TM: I haven't requested working code from OO'ers for that. [...]

That's misleading. You only ask for sketches ("It can either be real code or pseudo-code." [link|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/challeng.htm|http://www.geocities...izer/challeng.htm]), but then you critisize the examples for omitting code ("The OOP version has simply put many of the details somewhere else." [link|http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/chal01.htm|http://www.geocities...blizer/chal01.htm]).

That's why I'm only interested in working code. No hand-waving need apply.

--
-- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link|http://onestepback.org|http://onestepback.org]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

Perl 6, Apocalypse 12 is out - (ben_tilly) - (47) - April 16, 2004, 08:39:12 PM EDT

Shapes in Perl 6 - (JimWeirich) - (46) - April 18, 2004, 10:34:53 PM EDT

Shapes again? aaaaaahhhhh! -NT - (tablizer) - (43) - April 19, 2004, 02:13:22 PM EDT

Re: Shapes again? aaaaaahhhhh! - (JimWeirich) - (42) - April 19, 2004, 09:32:56 PM EDT

re: aaaaaahhhhh! - (tablizer) - (41) - April 20, 2004, 08:21:03 PM EDT

I like the background. :-) - (admin) - (32) - April 20, 2004, 09:26:22 PM EDT

regarding formatting - (tablizer) - (31) - April 21, 2004, 12:49:24 AM EDT

Re: regarding formatting - (pwhysall) - (7) - April 21, 2004, 01:21:02 AM EDT

One man's cack is anothers......um - (tablizer) - (6) - April 21, 2004, 05:00:38 PM EDT

Duplicating the formatting stuff... - (admin) - (5) - April 21, 2004, 07:21:42 PM EDT

Re: CSS - (tablizer) - (4) - April 21, 2004, 08:38:36 PM EDT

You said, "formatting" -NT - (admin) - (3) - April 21, 2004, 09:09:44 PM EDT

Sorry, I meant in a general sense, not a per-element sense -NT - (tablizer) - (2) - April 21, 2004, 09:11:52 PM EDT

Then you wanted "templating" instead. -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1) - April 21, 2004, 09:16:38 PM EDT

You are right. That is a better word for it. -NT - (tablizer) - April 22, 2004, 03:51:28 PM EDT

Re: regarding formatting - (admin) - (7) - April 21, 2004, 08:38:28 AM EDT

goto contest - (tablizer) - (6) - April 21, 2004, 05:05:06 PM EDT

Re: goto contest - (admin) - (5) - April 21, 2004, 07:22:43 PM EDT

I already did an XBase version. (There is also an L version) - (tablizer) - (4) - April 21, 2004, 08:43:23 PM EDT

I'm not talking about shapes. -NT - (admin) - (3) - April 21, 2004, 09:09:04 PM EDT

What are you talking about? - (tablizer) - (2) - April 21, 2004, 09:13:31 PM EDT

Your "peoples" example. -NT - (admin) - (1) - April 21, 2004, 09:13:55 PM EDT

People database - (tablizer) - April 22, 2004, 02:44:39 AM EDT

Read for content - (jb4) - (14) - April 21, 2004, 02:13:12 PM EDT

All these years, and still no slamdunk OO evidence - (tablizer) - (13) - April 21, 2004, 05:10:17 PM EDT

How would you know that ?!? "Slam-dunked" X times over... - (CRConrad) - (12) - April 22, 2004, 02:15:40 AM EDT

Psychology, Psychology, Psychology - (tablizer) - (11) - April 22, 2004, 02:53:57 AM EDT

And what else would you *EXPECT*? - (ben_tilly) - (10) - April 22, 2004, 02:28:43 PM EDT

Goto's and OO both share INconsistency - (tablizer) - (5) - April 22, 2004, 03:28:34 PM EDT

And there is one reader's imagination... -NT - (ben_tilly) - (4) - April 22, 2004, 04:23:30 PM EDT

Dr. Codd was hallucinating? - (tablizer) - (3) - April 22, 2004, 06:18:16 PM EDT

Re: Dr. Codd was hallucinating? - (jb4) - (1) - April 22, 2004, 06:27:08 PM EDT

Doesn't look like it. - (Another Scott) - April 22, 2004, 06:38:44 PM EDT

It was a reference to an earlier post - (ben_tilly) - April 22, 2004, 08:04:59 PM EDT

But in the immortal words of Ringo: - (jb4) - (3) - April 22, 2004, 06:25:45 PM EDT

Goto's are a Rorschach test: we see what we hate in it -NT - (tablizer) - (2) - April 22, 2004, 09:14:12 PM EDT

Go program in DCL, then. - (pwhysall) - (1) - April 23, 2004, 01:54:18 AM EDT

I think you missed my point -NT - (tablizer) - April 23, 2004, 03:07:46 AM EDT

Purpose of Shapes - (JimWeirich) - (7) - April 21, 2004, 02:14:01 PM EDT

sniggle :-) working code -NT - (boxley) - April 21, 2004, 02:21:08 PM EDT

derth of more applicable examples - (tablizer) - (1) - April 21, 2004, 05:49:55 PM EDT

Re: derth of more applicable examples - (JimWeirich) - April 23, 2004, 07:56:30 PM EDT

Your URL is broken - (ben_tilly) - (3) - April 21, 2004, 06:40:31 PM EDT

Nope. - (admin) - April 21, 2004, 09:08:40 PM EDT

Re: Your URL is broken - (JimWeirich) - (1) - April 21, 2004, 10:11:21 PM EDT

Very long URLs have ellipsis inserted in the URL. (new thread) - (Another Scott) - April 21, 2004, 10:22:29 PM EDT

Corrected version - (ben_tilly) - (1) - April 19, 2004, 07:12:52 PM EDT

Re: Corrected version - (JimWeirich) - April 19, 2004, 09:32:03 PM EDT

Because you should never underestimate the unoriginality of the very stupid.
68 ms