Whose Fish - OO solution - Theory and Concepts

This is a discussion on Whose Fish - OO solution - Theory and Concepts ; > > Potmind, > > Insult detection notice. > You'll forget all about it in three weeks. ;^)...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Whose Fish - OO solution

  1. Default Re: Maintenance! (Re: Whose Fish - OO solution)

    > > Potmind,
    >
    > Insult detection notice.
    >


    You'll forget all about it in three weeks. ;^)




  2. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution

    On Jun 12, 3:20 pm, S Perryman <q...{}q.net> wrote:
    > topmind wrote:
    > > Kreeg wrote:

    >
    > TM>My comment was about the matter of being OO versus not being OO, not
    > TM>necessarily "valid" or not. Jordan's solution is not that OO. It
    > TM>mostly only uses encapsulation, not the other two. That is, the
    > TM>operations and data structures are bound together in the OO "self-
    > TM>handling-noun" way. Thus, on a continious scale, it has a fairly low
    > TM>amount of "OO-ness" if you will.
    >
    > >>This is true. It actually gets back to Steven Perryman's comment to you
    > >>that you that you would be 'pleasantly surprised' to see that OO
    > >>probably doesn't add much to this particular problem over a straight
    > >>procedural solution.

    > > Then why is he and others pressing the issue? Why not hunt for a biz
    > > problem where OO kicks tail? Chock full of glorious polymorphism. That
    > > would make everyone happy. Is he just yanking me around for the sake
    > > of yankage?

    >
    > Feel free to tell us what "issue" you believe I am "pressing" .


    You accused me of dodging the example (among other things), as if I am
    afraid of to compete with the OO versions of it. However, you also
    seem to be saying that OO does not help it much. In other words, you
    are accusing me of being afraid to battle a monster that you know does
    not exist. This would imply that you don't really want to see me
    battle the moster to see who will win because there is no monster; but
    merely want to watch me fret over the challenge. In other words, a
    "troll".

    >
    > Regards,
    > Steven Perryman


    -T-


  3. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution

    topmind wrote:

    > On Jun 12, 3:20 pm, S Perryman <q...{}q.net> wrote:


    >>>Kreeg wrote:


    >>TM>My comment was about the matter of being OO versus not being OO, not
    >>TM>necessarily "valid" or not. Jordan's solution is not that OO. It
    >>TM>mostly only uses encapsulation, not the other two. That is, the
    >>TM>operations and data structures are bound together in the OO "self-
    >>TM>handling-noun" way. Thus, on a continious scale, it has a fairly low
    >>TM>amount of "OO-ness" if you will.


    K>This is true. It actually gets back to Steven Perryman's comment to you
    K>that you that you would be 'pleasantly surprised' to see that OO
    K>probably doesn't add much to this particular problem over a straight
    K>procedural solution.

    TM>Then why is he and others pressing the issue? Why not hunt for a biz
    TM>problem where OO kicks tail? Chock full of glorious polymorphism. That
    TM>would make everyone happy. Is he just yanking me around for the sake
    TM>of yankage?

    >>Feel free to tell us what "issue" you believe I am "pressing" .


    > You accused me of dodging the example (among other things), as if I am
    > afraid of to compete with the OO versions of it.


    Correct. You are afraid.

    But the irony is the things that you appear to be afraid of exposing about
    yourself are already known in the large to comp.object. A poor solution to
    the "Whose fish" problem will hardly make these things any worse.


    > However, you also seem to be saying that OO does not help it much. In other words, you
    > are accusing me of being afraid to battle a monster that you know does
    > not exist.


    Wrong.

    The difference between you and me is that I have much greater
    understanding/experience of OO and procedural development, together with
    more intelligence than you, to know that this problem was not biased
    towards either OOP or "P/R" .


    > This would imply that you don't really want to see me battle the moster


    Wrong. We awaited your solution with interest. But it didn't come did it.

    Such is the strength of your delusions about OOP, together with your
    cowardly disingenuous nature, that you could not even try if your life
    depended on it.

    So the *fact* (not implication) is that I knew you wouldn't attempt the
    problem. Low-intelligence organisms have very limited and predictable
    behavioural modes. Twas easy to predict your behaviour (as I will be able
    to do on comp.object for every bit of rubbish that you post from here-on) .

    Yet you will have your chance. Because you have complained about the
    "Whose fish" example, you are going to define a "real world" variant of the
    "Whose fish" problem with the aspects of the solutions that you wish to
    discuss. No complaints from you then is there [ OoD : WSIHTPTE ?? ]


    > to see who will win because there is no monster; but
    > merely want to watch me fret over the challenge.


    What happened is that comp.object watched you thrash from pillar to post to
    try and avoid providing a solution. Epitomised by embarrassing yourself
    with pathetic excuses as to why you shouldn't provide a solution, showing a
    lack of intelligence to be able to discern what IMHO was quite obvious, to
    providing a spectacular side-show of ignorance on a range of topics from
    game theory to graph theory to NP-completeness.


    > In other words, a "troll".


    1. You need to read the Usenet definition of a troll.

    2. Paging Mr Pot, message from Mr Kettle : seven year continual postings of
    the same thing in a self-confessed (deluded) attempt to agitate the
    comp.object newsgroup.


    Regards,
    Steven Perryman

  4. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution


    You are such an arrogant delusional prick. And, you still have no
    objective evidence that OO is better after waving your ego in the air
    like that. -T-


  5. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution


    Kreeg wrote:
    > topmind wrote:
    > *** MASS SNIPPAGE ***
    > >
    > > Then why is he and others pressing the issue? Why not hunt for a biz
    > > problem where OO kicks tail? Chock full of glorious polymorphism. That
    > > would make everyone happy. Is he just yanking me around for the sake
    > > of yankage?
    > >

    >
    > Please go back to the original post of the original 'Whose Fish' thread,
    > by Jordan Marr. Here it is for you, in fact.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp....0ff58ddddb8329
    >
    > Mr. Marr actually states that he thinks that the 'Whose Fish' problem
    > would be a *great* problem to throw at a relational database, and wanted
    > to honestly see an implementation of it. However, you dismissed the
    > problem out of hand, and things degenerated from there.


    I have a right to criticize it. If you disagree with my criticism, you
    can respond or ignore it. Don't turn it into personal attacks. Either
    attack ideas or keep quiet. You don't have to leak out of attacking
    ideas and into attacking individuals. You just plain don't. Resist the
    urge.

    >
    > As to why the 'Whose Fish' threads aren't about 'hunting for a biz
    > problem where OO kicks tail', 1.) Not every thread is about you, and 2.)
    > Not everyone here is on a crusade like you are. Maybe he just thought
    > it was an interesting problem, regardless of whether it furthered some
    > imaginary 'pro-OO' cause?
    >
    > >> I'd also be pretty interested in a solution that used C# 3.0's LINQ.
    > >> There are some pretty neat things that have been done with LINQ just for
    > >> the fun of it. [2]
    > >>
    > >> [2]
    > >> http://blogs.msdn.com/lukeh/archive/...-in-c-3-0.aspx
    > >>
    > >>>> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c9e241f760a89a

    > >


    -T-


  6. Default Re: Maintenance! (Re: Whose Fish - OO solution)

    topmind wrote:

    TM>Also, OO'ers *do* seem to hard-wire domain taxonomies into production
    TM>app code or build non-trivial data structures into their app
    TM>(reinventing the DB) such that textbook puzzles and their production
    TM>OO style perhaps do not really differ that much. Martin's payroll
    TM>hardwired concepts and taxonomies into his sample, for example. Thus,
    TM>to them it seems like "home".

    >>1. Completely irrelevant to this thread, which is : Whose Fish - OO solution.


    >>2. Completely irrelevant to this thread, because the solution given by the
    >>OP does not "hard-wire domain taxonomies into production app code or build
    >>non-trivial data structures" .


    > It *is* relevant if their coding style for toy examples matches that
    > of production code.


    Anyone with a semblance of intelligence will forego matters of coding style
    for a solution that is correct and understandable.

    A fact that applies to both the OOP and SQL solutions posted.


    TM>Hit me with your best shot. I do make sloppy mistakes sometimes, but
    TM>I'm rarely fundimentally wrong so far.

    >>Don't have to. You killed yourself with your own sword by the very fact
    >>that you have even talked about using counter-terrorism as an example.


    >>The fact that you cannot even keep track of your self-contradictions (and
    >>only 3 weeks ago at that) is just more evidence of the fact that you are an
    >>embarrassingly poor debater.


    > If you can keep track of everything you've said 3 weeks ago, I applaud
    > your memory.


    Well no, you write so much rubbish on comp.object, who can expect you to
    remember what you wrote. But because it is the same old rubbish, you should
    at least maintain a stock collection of said rubbish (perhaps even titled/
    enumerated so you don't have to repost it) .


    > It is a good thing I forget stuff 3 weeks old, otherwise
    > I would broil over all the personal insults an accusations of lies and
    > fraud your hurl my way.


    So you claim I have made statements that you a fraud (one who engages in
    acts of deceit for material advantage/gain - financial traditionally) ??

    IMHO claiming someone is a fraud is a far more serious matter than
    claiming that they are a liar.

    Checking Usenet archives on comp.object for "perryman" "topmind" "fraud"
    (and spelling variations on the latter ) ...

    Oh guess what, the *only* message that matches the search terms ??
    The posting to *which I am replying* .

    So you have deliberately made a statement known to be untrue.
    Therefore you are a liar.

    So you see:

    1. comp.object doesn't have to have 3 weeks memory when it comes to
    being reminded about your ways.

    2. Liars need much better long-term memory, because they never know when
    their lies are going to be challenged. and how (as I was taught from
    knee-high : get your story straight) .


    > (None objectively proven, by the way.)


    QED.


    TM>It was mostly a sarcistic joke.

    >>1. Sarcastic, not sarcistic (you cannot even blame keyboard layout) .
    >>2. Not a good joke.
    >>3. It backfired on you.


    > If YOU liked it, I would really be shocked. I expect you to dispise
    > everything I say and do by now. It is thus unnecessary to report that
    > you hate my jokes. Itsa given.


    Reporting the facts != hatred.


    TM>[1] YTD calcs and threasholds were not part of Martin's original
    TM>requirements that I know of. Perhaps they should be added to a real
    TM>package because they are fairly common. And I did note in my doc that
    TM>I purposely did not include the period-end processing.

    >>Why are you bleating on about the requirements in Robert Martins' payroll
    >>example !!??


    >>The topic of this thread is : Whose Fish - OO solution.
    >>Not Robert Martins' employee payroll processing example.


    > Somebody ASKED how I would add a YTD union fee limit. You clipped it
    > out. (BTW, I've found a simpler way to add it since the above, if
    > anybody's interested.)


    No they didn't.
    It was *I* who gave you a *suggestion* as to what kind of questions a
    payroll variant of the "Whose fish" problem might be expected to answer.

    So are you going to define a set of facts (in the format of the "Whose
    fish" problem) for the payroll domain, and then set us the questions that
    you want people to provide solution implementations for ??


    TM>I wanted to settle on a less "puzzly" version of the example so that I
    TM>could explore this issue of how "meta" it would need to be.

    SP>As "meta" as one desires.
    SP>The SQL and OOP solutions solved the specific problem.

    TM>Most of the claims made about OOP involve it being easier to change.

    >>The topic is : "Whose Fish - OO solution" .


    > Okay then, how is the problem going to change over time? Let's explore
    > change scenarios for Fish.


    Fair enough. Give us the change scenarios that you wish to discuss.


    TM>Without understanding something about the domain, it is hard to
    TM>explore change patterns and their impact on the code.Will they always
    TM>being dealing with fish, cigaretts, and houses, or will the nouns
    TM>change? Who will enter/create the new nouns? Who will classify them?
    TM>Will other apps share info about them? These are KEY questions for
    TM>most apps that I've ****yzed. Do you disagree?

    >>Then provide a "real world" domain for an example.
    >>The premise is very simple :


    >>For some "real world" domain, devise a set of facts for that domain for
    >>which some question can be asked. Then solicit solutions in s/w that will
    >>answer the question with a given set of facts.


    > We already did that with the payroll example.


    Robert Martins' payroll example is nothing of the kind.


    >>If you cannot do even expend effort on that front, don't expect anyone
    >>to even bother with your suggestions for a "real world" example.


    > You keep trying different examples until you find one that can bust P/R?


    ROTFLMAO.

    1. For the topic of this thread, OOP and SQL solutions have been given.
    People on comp.object appear to be quite happy to discuss them.

    2. It is *YOU* who wants to try "different examples" , not us.

    The "Whose fish" problem is sufficiently representative of a type of
    problem in the real world for which systems are built to solve. Fortunately
    there are enough people here with sufficient intelligence to realise this
    fact.


    3. Because of your embarrassingly poor ability to remember what you have
    written, or bother to check before you post here, your suggested choice of
    "real world" example has made you look even more stupid.


    TM>If the issue is something other than MAINTAINABILITY, then please
    TM>state so.

    >>Your usual cowardly attempt to evade something when the limits of your
    >>intelligence/ability swoop into view.


    >>The issue is about providing solutions to the "Whose fish" problem.
    >>Not about MAINTAINABILITY.


    > If maintenence be damned then it TRUELY is not a realistic example for
    > the vast majority of apps. I rest my case. How about a cryptic Perl
    > one-liner solution?


    Reached rock-bottom again, and still digging (sigh) .
    Any "cryptic" solution can be cosmetically changed into a more readable/
    understandable form. A solution is *invariant* under cosmetic change.


    Regards,
    Steven Perryman

  7. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution

    topmind wrote:

    > You are such an arrogant delusional prick.


    1. Thank you (very nice) .

    2. If someone is delusional, it is useful to know what the claims of
    delusion specifically relate to.


    As we got nothing specific on 2, and from 1, in fact it appears that I got
    very close to the truth.

    But as always, please feel free to address 2 in more detail.


    > And, you still have no objective evidence that OO is better after waving
    > your ego in the airlike that


    1. Still asking for the same "objective evidence" that you have
    been told you can never get, the same "objective evidence" that
    you cannot provide the converse for (SIGH) .

    2. Still the same deluded person posting that same deluded rubbish for over
    7 years (SIGH) .

    Oh, can you clarify whether I recently saw a posting from you claiming
    someone was delusional ... ??


    Regards,
    Steven Perryman

  8. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution



    topmind wrote:
    > Kreeg wrote:
    >> topmind wrote:
    >> *** MASS SNIPPAGE ***
    >>> Then why is he and others pressing the issue? Why not hunt for a biz
    >>> problem where OO kicks tail? Chock full of glorious polymorphism. That
    >>> would make everyone happy. Is he just yanking me around for the sake
    >>> of yankage?
    >>>

    >> Please go back to the original post of the original 'Whose Fish' thread,
    >> by Jordan Marr. Here it is for you, in fact.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.com/group/comp....0ff58ddddb8329
    >>
    >> Mr. Marr actually states that he thinks that the 'Whose Fish' problem
    >> would be a *great* problem to throw at a relational database, and wanted
    >> to honestly see an implementation of it. However, you dismissed the
    >> problem out of hand, and things degenerated from there.

    >
    > I have a right to criticize it. If you disagree with my criticism, you
    > can respond or ignore it. Don't turn it into personal attacks. Either
    > attack ideas or keep quiet. You don't have to leak out of attacking
    > ideas and into attacking individuals. You just plain don't. Resist the
    > urge.
    >


    I can only assume that you're using the collective 'you', here, and not
    talking directly to me.

    Whether Mr. Perryman wants to flame you or not, I don't care. However,
    I will say that your criticism was totally off base. Someone posted an
    OO solution to the 'Whose Fish' problem, explicitly saying that they'd
    be interested in a relational solution, and you didn't so much as
    criticize it as you just dismissed that entire domain of problems all
    together *without even thinking about it*.

    I don't even think you really read his post, because you totally ignored
    the fact that Mr. Marr said that he thought that a relational database
    may be able to do it better!


    >> As to why the 'Whose Fish' threads aren't about 'hunting for a biz
    >> problem where OO kicks tail', 1.) Not every thread is about you, and 2.)
    >> Not everyone here is on a crusade like you are. Maybe he just thought
    >> it was an interesting problem, regardless of whether it furthered some
    >> imaginary 'pro-OO' cause?
    >>
    >>>> I'd also be pretty interested in a solution that used C# 3.0's LINQ.
    >>>> There are some pretty neat things that have been done with LINQ just for
    >>>> the fun of it. [2]
    >>>>
    >>>> [2]
    >>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/lukeh/archive/...-in-c-3-0.aspx
    >>>>
    >>>>>> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/comp....c9e241f760a89a

    >
    > -T-
    >


  9. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution

    On Jun 14, 1:12 am, S Perryman <q...{}q.net> wrote:
    > topmind wrote:
    > > You are such an arrogant delusional prick.

    >
    > 1. Thank you (very nice) .
    >
    > 2. If someone is delusional, it is useful to know what the claims of
    > delusion specifically relate to.


    Your crazy embellished dramatic speculations on my allegedly sinister
    internal motivations for why I do what I do. You act like you have a
    certain window to my mind and that you are an excellent armchair
    neuron debugger. Rational people know speculations about why others do
    what they do is merely speculation, but you *act* like you have God's
    blueprints in front of you.

    If there is a single personality trait that trends through most OOP
    supporters, it is mistaking their personal subjectivity for universe
    truth.

    >
    > 1. Still asking for the same "objective evidence" that you have
    > been told you can never get, the same "objective evidence" that
    > you cannot provide the converse for (SIGH) .


    What use is the Fish example if we have no objective comparison?
    Everyone will like their *own* version in their fav language. No news
    there. That's always the same outcome. I am just the messenger. You
    can kick me for bearing the bad news all you want, but the outcome is
    still the same with or without me. You are too busy slugging me to
    notice the real problem. Typical of you.

    > Regards,
    > Steven Perryman


    -T-


  10. Default Re: Whose Fish - OO solution

    topmind wrote:

    > On Jun 14, 1:12 am, S Perryman <q...{}q.net> wrote:


    >>topmind wrote:


    >>>You are such an arrogant delusional prick.


    >>1. Thank you (very nice) .


    >>2. If someone is delusional, it is useful to know what the claims of
    >>delusion specifically relate to.


    > Your crazy embellished dramatic speculations on my allegedly sinister
    > internal motivations for why I do what I do.


    1. Who has alleged your "internal motivations" are sinister ??

    2. Far from it. You are merely deluded. deluded != sinister.


    > You act like you have a
    > certain window to my mind and that you are an excellent armchair
    > neuron debugger.


    I do have a window to your mind.
    We have had 7 years of your continual postings to comp.object to know
    exactly how you act.


    > Rational people know speculations about why others do
    > what they do is merely speculation, but you *act* like you have God's
    > blueprints in front of you.


    No, but we have *your* "blueprints" here on comp.object .

    An animal that spends 7 years continually dumping its bowels in the
    same place cannot complain when the humans actually have a look at the
    nasty mess and actually deduce much about it.


    > If there is a single personality trait that trends through most OOP
    > supporters, it is mistaking their personal subjectivity for universe
    > truth.


    Really ??
    Please feel free to show us the objective evidence that supports this
    claim ...


    >>1. Still asking for the same "objective evidence" that you have
    >>been told you can never get, the same "objective evidence" that
    >>you cannot provide the converse for (SIGH) .


    > What use is the Fish example if we have no objective comparison?


    It is of academic interest.
    That is why the OP presented the problem.
    That is why someone provided an SQL solution.
    That is why the OP provided an OOP solution.


    > I am just the messenger. You
    > can kick me for bearing the bad news all you want, but the outcome is
    > still the same with or without me.


    More delusions (continually proclaiming yourself as a "messenger"
    delivering some great truth) ... ??


    Regards,
    Steven Perryman

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. So long, and thanks for all the fish...
    By Application Development in forum basic.visual
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-05-2007, 12:50 PM
  2. Whose Fish?
    By Application Development in forum Theory and Concepts
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 06-04-2007, 10:04 AM
  3. Re: Fish Eye processing
    By Application Development in forum C
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 06:08 PM
  4. Fish Lens Effect
    By Application Development in forum Adobe Tools
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-05-2006, 03:47 PM
  5. Flailing Fish in Need Of Rescue
    By Application Development in forum PROLOG
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 01:17 PM