Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
in [OOP]
|
From: topmind on 12 Jun 2005 15:39 [...] > > > It is impossible to put all related factors in one place at the same > > time in a 3D world, so as-needed dynamacy of view is helpful. > > Absolutely agreed. > > > OO just hardwires one particular view into the code. Get meta. > > Not particularly. Some OO languages lack the abstraction tools necessary > to go meta, such as "metasyntactic abstraction", reflection, > introspection... The good ones have such mechanisms. > > Laurent Yes, but they are essentially reinventing databases (just not relational ones). If you want meta grouping and searching capability, all roads lead to databases. What remains is whether to go with relational or non-relational (navigational/OODBMS). People are realizing that text code by itself is crappy at managing large-scale structures and the direction seems to be toward databases. Even Class Browsers are starting to add query languages and forms. Thus, eventually it will come down to a battle over which kind of database I estimate. Ten years from now this forum will be filled with navigational weenies fighting with relational weenies. -T-
From: topmind on 12 Jun 2005 15:46 > It sounds like you are evading the issue. If you can show that > you have a superior means of addressing a requirement that is > addressed via polymorphism in FitNesse, it would provide a reason to > take your claims seriously. If you cannot, that provides valuable > information as well. I am sorry, but I am not releasing my wiki code anytime soon. Besides, I didn't make any claims, you did. Two paradigms are considered equal or unknown until objectively proven otherwise. How about we start with some smaller examples: http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/challeng.htm -T-
From: Daniel Parker on 12 Jun 2005 21:12 "topmind" <topmind(a)technologist.com> wrote in message news:1118604536.083332.249120(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> Like {referring to me) "you were the one bragging about how great >> >> polymorphism is," >> >> >> > Those are claims about debate issues, not paradign claims. >> > >> Not even that. They are simply statements that are not true. > > > How about you clarify your position for the audience then. > Certainly. My position is that I do not believe that all of RCM's articles are about device drivers. -- Daniel
From: CBFalconer on 13 Jun 2005 00:10 Charles Richmond wrote: > .... snip ... > > You can get some chess rules in Acrobat (.pdf) format at: > > <http://www.ihsa.org/activity/ch/ 2004-05/chess%20rule%20book%2004-05.pdf> Broken URL, and I can't figure out where. Terminating at "ch/" doesn't bring up any elucidation. Nor does eliminating the blank. -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
From: topmind on 13 Jun 2005 01:01
You are changing the subject. |