Post #156,651
5/24/04 2:48:18 PM
5/24/04 3:12:45 PM
|
That's all I needed.
You were the one who has been claiming OO is objectively better and then expect me to rewrite a whole Iwethey from scratch? I withdrawl the "bloated" claim for now. Feel better? However, that still does not make OO less bloated than p/r, only unknown. It seems to me the claim under discussion in this thread was "O-R mappers bloat your code". Now that you've admitted that they don't, we can put it to rest. Although I'll note that old habits apparently die hard. You're still weaseling. Either the code is bloated compared to how you would do it, or it isn't. If you're not willing to provide an example, the conclusion to be drawn is "Bryce can't provide an example", not "the status is unknown." You say it's bloated, prove it. Otherwise it isn't. So do I. I have written an e-bay clone (more or less) in less than 7 weeks during the dot-com mayham. Then stop whining about toolkits. You must have used something to do that. BTW, you guys never countered my running-code toy example at:
[...]
I was first with the coded challenge, and now you are trying to trump it with your own. If OO cannot do that better, I would like to know why. If it's because it is a toy example instead of a real one, then describe how it differs from a real one that prevents OO's benefits from showing up. 1) I'm not in the habit of reading your website in the off-chance that you've provided something for me to do and 2) I'm not interested in toys, which you admit it is. Here's an example that does a real-life thing. If you think you can do better, then have at it. Otherwise shaddap. [edit: removed the broken "challenge" link] Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
May 24, 2004, 03:12:45 PM EDT
|
Post #156,657
5/24/04 2:59:25 PM
|
Probably not telling you anything you don't already know...
...but that example was originally started by Jim Weirich on Freep's OOP board. JohnU also got involved. Of course, since EZBoard decided to shut down the inactive boards, we don't have any extant to refer to.
The reason I like the EZBoard example is (a) it's working (or soon to be working) code - the code can be objectively tested for performance and features; (b) it's something that we share in common and can immediately reap the benefits of any new ideas.
So, yes, let's dispense with code fragments and toy code.
|
Post #156,658
5/24/04 3:02:11 PM
|
I take it you mean...
... "IWETHEY example", and not "EZBoard example"?
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #156,659
5/24/04 3:09:53 PM
|
Yep = That's what I meant
The reporting example was fine, it's just that there was no measurable way to run the code and verify for correctness and performance.
|
Post #156,695
5/24/04 4:55:09 PM
|
Re: Probably not telling you anything you don't already know
...but that example was originally started by Jim Weirich on Freep's OOP board
Actually, the problem was introduced by someone else (JohnU perhaps?). Bryce actually wrote some (non-working) psuedo-code for it. All I did was translate Bryce's non-working psuedo-code into working Ruby code. Then I refactored to a better written procedural version and finally made it more flexible by introducing some polymorphism.
I always thought the problem description was a little screwy (I never really understood the need for some the the requirements), but at least we had some form of code from Bryce to compare to. And the OO code compared very favorably with the procedural version (e.g. comparable code sizes (no bloat), polymorphism without taxinomy).
At least, that's how I remember it.
--
-- 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)
|
Post #156,700
5/24/04 5:12:43 PM
|
My memory is too taxed
Not sure why I thought you initiated the sample. But your recollection does sound about right.
Sure wish we hadn't lost the EZBoard archives. For that matter, I wish Freep would come visit every once in a while.
|
Post #156,704
5/24/04 5:16:58 PM
|
Memory Lane
I always thought the problem description was a little screwy (I never really understood the need for some the the requirements) We kind of never agreed on the scope. And the OO code compared very favorably with the procedural version (e.g. comparable code sizes (no bloat), polymorphism without taxinomy). If I remember correctly, you implemented a different set of features than mine, so that we really couldn't compare code-to-code for many parts, but rather focused on the architecture issues. ________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #156,686
5/24/04 4:40:18 PM
|
re: That's all I needed.
It seems to me the claim under discussion in this thread was "O-R mappers bloat your code". Now that you've admitted that they don't, we can put it to rest. I didn't say that they don't. I just don't have any comparative evidence to offer youses right now. I am curious though about what percent of self-declared OO proponents prefer O-R mappers. Many have lots of complaints. "Bryce can't provide an example", not "the status is unknown." You say it's bloated, prove it. Otherwise it isn't. False dichotomy. The answer to "is A > B" is Null at this point. Otherwise shaddap. Okay. After addressing some ongoing subissues, I will shut up about O-R mappers until new evidence arises. ________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #156,690
5/24/04 4:46:37 PM
|
re: That's all I needed.
Given that the evidence so far has either been conceded or unanswered by you, I'd say "isn't" is a lot closer to the current state of affairs than "null". Of course, you will never admit that, so I'll take a "shaddap". I have no doubt that you'll sit on this for a while and then trot out, "youses never proved it wasn't bloated!" at some point in the future, so I'm calling pre-foul now so it doesn't happen.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
