From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrick Kelly" To: "'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs'" <9fans@9fans.net> References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com> <4BC836D2020000CC000269E3@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <4BC855DF020000CC00026A46@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 13:55:50 -0400 Message-ID: <000301cadd8e$0dd7c720$29875560$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04a94f2e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 I was just speaking generally. One of my major programming languages is Ada, and I doubt anyone would = say that isn't big on provability. I've used objects a couple times, in = places where they do in fact help, but those cases are, in general, not = read properly. Using an object in the wrong place, which is most places, = does lead to worse code. For most people, using the wrong tool for the = wrong job is foolish, but for OOP lovers... The question isn't how do you prove it does reduce static provability, = but how do you prove it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that the = sun revolves around the earth, but we all know that's not true. That = being said, there are studies out there about using the wrong paradigm = for the wrong job, objects do come up. > -----Original Message----- > From: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-bounces@9fans.net] On = Behalf Of Jack Johnson > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:05 PM > To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! >=20 > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Patrick Kelly = wrote: > > Object-Orientation reduces static provability. >=20 > True (or true enough)? >=20 > Not to engender a flame war, but my gut says there must be some = Eiffel, Smalltalk, and LISP folk out there who are big on provability, > but I can imagine that there's a case out there for saying not all OO = implementations are the same. >=20 > Is this a G=C3=B6del question? How do you prove OO reduces static = provability? >=20 > I'm totally OK with a "true enough" response like the measured = complexity introduced makes it more problematic to determine static > provability (as I talk out my ass). >=20 > -Jack