From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <4BC870C8020000CC00026AD9@wlgw07.wlu.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:32 -0400 From: "Karljurgen Feuerherm" 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> <000301cadd8e$0dd7c720$29875560$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <000301cadd8e$0dd7c720$29875560$@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part5A70D418.0__=" Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04c4482e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__Part5A70D418.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok--so it's agreed that it's not OO that's the problem, it's the users, = then, who don't know which tool to use when. Not at all the same thing. =20 And to be pedantic, since you give this example, the sun does revolve = around the earth, so long as you choose the earth as your point of = reference... Certain points of reference are to be preferred for certain = things, as you said. So OO or not, as appropriate. =20 K >>> "Patrick Kelly" 16/04/2010 1:55:50 pm >>> 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. --=__Part5A70D418.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML

Ok--so it's agreed that it's not OO that's the problem, it's the = users, then, who don't know which tool to use when. Not at all the same = thing.

And to be pedantic, since you give this example, the sun does = revolve around the earth, so long as you choose the earth as your = point of reference... Certain points of reference are to be preferred for = certain things, as you said. So OO or not, as appropriate.

K

>>> "Patrick Kelly" <kameo76890@gmail.com> = 16/04/2010 1:55:50 pm >>>
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.

--=__Part5A70D418.0__=--