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><4BC855DF020000CC00026A46@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com> <4BC861F8020000CC00026A88@wlgw07.wlu.ca> In-Reply-To: <4BC861F8020000CC00026A88@wlgw07.wlu.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:10:28 -0400 Message-ID: <000401cadd90$198d7310$4ca85930$@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: 04be45a0-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >From: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-bounces@9fans.net] On = Behalf Of Karljurgen Feuerherm >Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 1:11 PM >To: 'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs' >Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! > >This doesn't make much sense to me. Object-orientation in itself is = simply another level of data abstraction. And for the rest, I think = "provability" is more theoretical than practical, other than the >most = trivial programmes. You are correct in saying OOP is just another type of abstraction. I = would be correct in saying a hammer is just another type of tool, but = would you use a hammer to repair circuitry? I would be correct in saying = a nuclear missile is just another weapon, but would you use that when a = gun would suffice? Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki just simple warfare? There are proper tools for a given job. Using the correct tool is a good = thing, using the wrong tool causes problems. There are places where = objects are useful, yet most OOP programmers use objects everywhere. = When representing non-objects as objects, problems arise. Quite the contrary, provability is most important in the most complex = programs. Math is all about proving things, be it simple or complex. If = a given formulae is not provable, it's damn near useless, but when a = program isn't provable, it's just shrugged off.=20 =20 >I'm beginning to get the impression (or perhaps more accurately am = increasingly getting the impression) that the plan9 community is = reactionary rather than progressive... not a good characteristic >if one = is trying to make advances in comparison with one's predecessors... Do not let your impression of a few people effect your view of the Plan = 9 community. Have you look at what Plan 9 has done? I would hardly go to say we are = reactive. Every other system has reacted to what Plan 9 has done, not = the other way around. Communities are made up of humans, humans are complex systems. Complex = systems cannot simply be labeled reactive or progressive. I'm beginning to get the impression people love to troll Plan 9, more = than they love to better computing, more than they love to learn from = what Plan 9 has done, more than they love to solve problems, the whole = reason behind computer science. >K > >>>> "Patrick Kelly" kameo76890@gmail.com> 16/04/2010 12:47:03 pm >> > >Object-Orientation reduces static provability. May be I'm crazy, but I = like it when you can prove that a program is only going to do what it = was told to do.