From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4BC870C8020000CC00026AD9@wlgw07.wlu.ca> References: <20100416115756.GA1107@polynum.com> <4BC836D2020000CC000269E3@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <4BC855DF020000CC00026A46@wlgw07.wlu.ca> <004001cadd84$7254c4a0$56fe4de0$@gmail.com> <000301cadd8e$0dd7c720$29875560$@gmail.com> <4BC870C8020000CC00026AD9@wlgw07.wlu.ca> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:22:36 -0400 Message-ID: From: Joseph Stewart To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64654d21383b604845eb270 Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX: hurrah! Topicbox-Message-UUID: 04caceb0-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0016e64654d21383b604845eb270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sorry to be a grouch, but can we change this thread to OO instead of the advertised TeX:hurrah! thread? I'm interested in the TeX news, but not so interested in the OO/language debate that no doubt will go on for a while... Thanks! -joe On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm wrote: > 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" 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. > --0016e64654d21383b604845eb270 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry to be a grouch, but can we change this thread to OO instead of the ad= vertised TeX:hurrah! thread?

I'm interested in the T= eX news, but not so interested in the OO/language debate that no doubt will= go on for a while...

Thanks!

-joe

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Karljurgen Feuerherm <kfeuerherm@wlu.ca> wrote:
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 a= ll the same thing.
=A0
And to be pedantic, since you give this example,=A0the sun does revolv= e around the earth, so long as you choose the earth=A0as your point of refe= rence... Certain points of reference are to be preferred for certain things= , as you said. So OO or not, as appropriate.
=A0
K

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

I was just speaking gener= ally.
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 re= ad 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 jo= b is foolish, but for OOP lovers...

The question isn't how do you prove it does reduce static provabili= ty, but how do you prove it does not. I can cite mathematical proof that th= e 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.

--0016e64654d21383b604845eb270--