Originally posted by Luke_Wolf
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu's Unity Written In Qt/QML For "Unity Next"
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostThis ^
OOP is purely about modeling things, their interactions, their properties, and their relationships with other things. There are nice language specific tools that make this easier for you such as classes and properties but they're just tools that embody standard design patterns. The blocking out direct access thing for instance is to model how you interact with things, lets say you have a thermostat you're not directly reading the temperature setting off of the central heating, nor are you setting it directly, you're going through the thermostat which is using the central heating's interface to control it. Yes you could bypass the thermostat but you'd need something to read off of the central heating's interface...
Also object orientation as I've stated previously in this thread isn't specific to programming, it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used. So english for instance is OO go a couple pages back for the breakdown. In relational databases there's this process called normalization which is really a fancy term for breaking things down into objects. Even if you don't work with databases normalization is still a great thing to learn because of that, because it helps you figure out how you design your objects and how things break down. Then we've got the mark-up languages which are really just data languages where you're organizing data into objects, but you'll note that markup languages are completely declarative they have no methods or anything else really other than constructs for nouns yet they are OO. So yeah...
Now, you insist in putting object-orientation on an undeserved privileged level. First you say that OO is not specific to programming, but "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used". You obviously have never studied mathematical logic, which gives the foundations of formal languagues. You haven't seen how propositional calculus or first-order calculus is developed here, and you obviously ignore connections between syntax and semantics, as seen in the completness theorems of both languages. Because both calculi are essential to language, and therefore to linguistics, and because (believe me) there is no OO in mathematical logic, either explicitly or implicitly, your argument is quite, if not plain, wrong.
Now, there is a huge difference between natural and formal languages; if english were really OO (which it isn't), that wouldn't suffice to back your claim that "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used", which, as previously seen, is not the case with formal languages.
If you see what "database normalization" really is, you'd realize that the thing is completely mathematical and logical; OO has nothing to do there, and no, saying that you have objects there doesn't make it OO, because saying so, again, is saying nothing at all.
Next you put the worst example you could've imagined: declarative programming. If you have objects, elements, particles in there, that solely has nothing to do with OO; again, you are saying nothing just by saying that everything has objects, or elements, or particles.
You seem to say whatever comes to your mind and makes sense at that moment; you don't have the basis to claim that you understand the essence of things because, obviously, saying that OO is in any way "essential" is being incredibly narrow-minded, besides ignorante, of course.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sergio View PostObviously OOP is a language-independent thing.
Now, you insist in putting object-orientation on an undeserved privileged level. First you say that OO is not specific to programming, but "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used".
Originally posted by Sergio View PostYou obviously have never studied mathematical logic, which gives the foundations of formal languagues. You haven't seen how propositional calculus or first-order calculus is developed here, and you obviously ignore connections between syntax and semantics, as seen in the completness theorems of both languages. Because both calculi are essential to language, and therefore to linguistics, and because (believe me) there is no OO in mathematical logic, either explicitly or implicitly, your argument is quite, if not plain, wrong.
What's really clear from this is that you've got a vendetta against OOP while not having an understanding of what it is or how it works merely because a bunch of people from math said so and some idiot from Adobe agreed with them. Adobe being a company with notoriously awful software that continues to be notoriously awful, and if getting that math foundation had improved them don't you think their software would be not buggy shit?
Are you denying that meters and seconds and the like are nouns and as nouns models?
Originally posted by Sergio View PostNow, there is a huge difference between natural and formal languages; if english were really OO (which it isn't), that wouldn't suffice to back your claim that "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used", which, as previously seen, is not the case with formal languages.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostIf you see what "database normalization" really is, you'd realize that the thing is completely mathematical and logical; OO has nothing to do there, and no, saying that you have objects there doesn't make it OO, because saying so, again, is saying nothing at all.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostNext you put the worst example you could've imagined: declarative programming. If you have objects, elements, particles in there, that solely has nothing to do with OO; again, you are saying nothing just by saying that everything has objects, or elements, or particles.
Code:<html> <head> </head> <body> Some Text <a href="http://www.example.com">here</a> </body> </html>
Originally posted by Sergio View PostYou seem to say whatever comes to your mind and makes sense at that moment; you don't have the basis to claim that you understand the essence of things because, obviously, saying that OO is in any way "essential" is being incredibly narrow-minded, besides ignorante, of course.Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 12 March 2013, 09:27 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostSo you just now are getting to arguing this point? I've been stating this the entire time we've been arguing.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Postand you're obviously full of shit, as I have shown that there are implicit objects all the way down to the fundamental levels. You have brought no actual arguments while pretending that you have, while I have always backed my arguments by logic and example, and you have not tried to poke holes or otherwise in my logic simply you keep making claims about math while throwing out names and then titles without even bothering to try to do a proper citation, which means you're failing even trying to do a proper ethos based appeal.
Your 'logic' is just saying "everything is an object". So what? Do you think that you know and understand the foundations of things because everything deals with 'something' (a particle)? It's like saying that the essence of the universe is the elementary particle, supposing there is such a thing. You don't even treat the nature of that thing: all you say is that there are things... that's it!
Now, you think that because I give you examples of great men that would've laughed at your face for your claims means that I disagree with you because of them? I'm tired of giving you math examples about foundations of things, like language, clearly refuting your BS, but you simply choose to ignore that because you know nothing.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostWhat's really clear from this is that you've got a vendetta against OOP while not having an understanding of what it is or how it works merely because a bunch of people from math said so and some idiot from Adobe agreed with them. Adobe being a company with notoriously awful software that continues to be notoriously awful, and if getting that math foundation had improved them don't you think their software would be not buggy shit?
Again, I don't say what I say just because they argue like that; I've actually taken time to study lots of things, including a technique like OO and mathematics. I come to the conclusion that what you say is bullshit, and I've backed it up with arguments, like the mathematical logic one that you keep ignoring, and additionally I've shown you that people like Knuth would just laugh in your face for such an idiotic and superficial way of seeing, not only programming, but nature in general.
You saying that Adobe is shit just shows that you can't be taken seriously... WTF does Adobe being shit have to do with this? it does not sum nothing to the discussion.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostAre you denying that meters and seconds and the like are nouns and as nouns models?
Communication is essentially about syntax and semantics. You have, on one hand, symbols; they mean nothing at all. Interpreting them as something (meters, seconds) is adding semantics to it. Are these things nouns? First you say: "They're exactly the same thing because object is just a fancy word for "noun"". So, you are again saying that everything is an object. First of all, this isn't true; he have relations, which are essential in algebra (do you know what it means for vector spaces to be isomorphic? nothing to do with 'objects'). Second, again, saying that everything is an object (which it isn't true) is being naive; you are just saying that 'everthing' is 'something' (object, particle, whatever).
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostExcept I'm the one who has been showing things you've just been throwing out baseless conjecture.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostNo it is you who doesn't understand database normalization, or object orientation which if you did you would very clearly see that it's the design process of separating things out in such a way that the result is properly designed objects.
Don't fucking start with "it's wikipedia, therefor it is invalid". Just read the fucking part and see that in the logical process there is nothing essential to OO. Even the whole page never even mentions the word 'object' or OO.
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostHow many times do I need to explain to you that setting up a foundation is important?
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostYou must build upon rock not sand. Also the entire idea that you're saying that declarative programming is not Object-Oriented is laughable at the outset. The entire basis of Markup languages are that you're dealing with a hierarchical set of objects and properties. Are you seriously going to argue that this is not the case? Let's just take a very basic example:
Code:<html> <head> </head> <body> Some Text <a href="http://www.example.com">here</a> </body> </html>
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostWhatever you say man who has a vendetta against OO and is showing the very properties that he's claiming I have, while throwing around pure conjecture and failed attempts at ethos arguments other than your initial two, with no attempts at even beginning a logic based argument.
Another thing, and I think I should have started with this: How old are you?Last edited by Sergio; 12 March 2013, 10:10 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sergio View PostI said: "Now, you insist...", which obviously means I've been aware of what you have been trying to say. Why do you say that "So you just now..."? Are you idiot? If I say that you insist, then it is clear that I've argued the point in the past.
"You insist..." would indicate what you're trying to push
"Now, you insist" indicates a change in arguement, as in "You said this, and... Now, you insist..." it is in no way indicative of having argued it in the past. Quite the contrary. It indicates there's been a sudden change.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostYou've shown nothing! Please, understand: SAYING THAT OBJECTS ARE EVERYWHERE IS SAYING NOTHING!!!!! Please, get this once and for all! You are basically just saying that everything is about something; you are not laying foundations for anything, or have explained how things work out of those 'particles'.
Let's start off with a basic equation
Code:2+2
how about if I make both seconds
Code:2s + 2s
Code:2m + 2s
Code:2 Granny Smiths + 2 Golden Delicious
Originally posted by Sergio View PostI have brought countless arguments from mathematics,
Originally posted by Sergio View Postlike the previous ones from mathematical logic that set the basis for formal languages, and OO has nothing to do with it. But, because you obviously have no idea what mathematical logic is, you just ignore what I say.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostYour 'logic' is just saying "everything is an object". So what? Do you think that you know and understand the foundations of things because everything deals with 'something' (a particle)? It's like saying that the essence of the universe is the elementary particle, supposing there is such a thing. You don't even treat the nature of that thing: all you say is that there are things... that's it!
Originally posted by Sergio View PostNow, you think that because I give you examples of great men that would've laughed at your face for your claims means that I disagree with you because of them? I'm tired of giving you math examples about foundations of things, like language, clearly refuting your BS, but you simply choose to ignore that because you know nothing.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostOh my god... you really think I give a shit about a contingent TECHNIQUE like OO?
Again, I don't say what I say just because they argue like that; I've actually taken time to study lots of things, including a technique like OO and mathematics. I come to the conclusion that what you say is bullshit, and I've backed it up with arguments, like the mathematical logic one that you keep ignoring, and additionally I've shown you that people like Knuth would just laugh in your face for such an idiotic and superficial way of seeing, not only programming, but nature in general.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostYou saying that Adobe is shit just shows that you can't be taken seriously... WTF does Adobe being shit have to do with this? it does not sum nothing to the discussion.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostSigh...
Communication is essentially about syntax and semantics. You have, on one hand, symbols; they mean nothing at all. Interpreting them as something (meters, seconds) is adding semantics to it.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostAre these things nouns?
need I say more?
Originally posted by Sergio View PostFirst you say: "They're exactly the same thing because object is just a fancy word for "noun"". So, you are again saying that everything is an object. First of all, this isn't true; he have relations, which are essential in algebra (do you know what it means for vector spaces to be isomorphic? nothing to do with 'objects'). Second, again, saying that everything is an object (which it isn't true) is being naive; you are just saying that 'everthing' is 'something' (object, particle, whatever).
Originally posted by Sergio View PostYou seem pretty confident that you have actually proved something; I've given you explict examples where OO is not essential,
Originally posted by Sergio View PostI've talked to you about relations and structure. For example, do you think OO is enough to express relations in algebra? Where is OO in algebra? Please answer this and stop saying that I don't provide arguments. To algebra what is essential is RELATIONS and STRUCTURES, not (a naive) 'object'. That algebra deals with something? yes. Can you call this an object? sure, nobody is stopping you. Are you giving any insight by saying that algebra deals with something and calling that something an 'object'? No; you are just being an idiot because you don't understand algebra, or mathematics in general.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostJust take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Databas...n:_definitions
Don't fucking start with "it's wikipedia, therefor it is invalid". Just read the fucking part and see that in the logical process there is nothing essential to OO. Even the whole page never even mentions the word 'object' or OO.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostMy god... your ignorance keeps amussing me. Do you actually know what mathematicians do? What mathematics is all about? It is about understanding the foundations! Now, you have set no foundation whatsoever, and I'm not going to repeat once more why what you say is equivalent to saying nothing at all.
Originally posted by Sergio View PostWTF? Where is inheritance? Where is polymorphism? HTML can't even express computation! What about classes? Do you think that because 'head' is 'something' that automatically makes it object-oriented? now it seems that you even don't know what object-orientation is; you are trying to generalize it to something that is no longer OO. Just because you call 'head' an object doesn't imply that HTML is OO... WTF are you just saying?
Originally posted by Sergio View PostI just hope you actually answer my arguments against your stupidity and stop saying that I don't have anything to say about this.
Another thing, and I think I should have started with this: How old are you?Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 13 March 2013, 01:08 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sergio View PostDo you actually know what mathematicians do?Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 13 March 2013, 02:02 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostActually... what is your answer to this? Beyond writing grant applications, fighting in the great institutional politics wars, and teaching math, I'm not entirely sure since you're theory guys. You're not particularly useful in engineering, you don't really count as one of the sciences so that isn't the answer. Clearly you guys aren't doing any programming given your lack of understanding of the development cycle.... so I'm at a loss here unless it's bashing things you don't understand (which there is actually a rather strong case for). Maybe I'm actually on to something here and mathematicians bash other fields particularly the applied fields because they're trying to legitimize their existence....
You assert that one of mathematicians' activities is fighting in institutional politics. You then assert that they aren't particularly useful in engineering and they mathematics doesn't count as one of the sciences. You further assert that no mathematicians do any programming based on your opinions of one persons understanding of the development cycle.
Then you top it off by suggesting they bash things they don't understand...
Comment
-
Wow, this math vs linguists bikering is totally nonsense.
Programming is math.
You have physical hardware which "is a computing model". Then you have programming language implementations on top of that hardware, which are computing models. The software you write to those implementations are subject to those models. You're a human being writing data to be interpreted by a model that is basically mathematics.
If we go to the abstraction part of the process (the desgining and paradigms), they are all based on formal models that have a ton of mathematics. This is the point where the debate of computer science being a part of (applied) math starts. Beside that, it's all math.
All paradigms discussed are turing-complete. All have efficient compilers. And all programers involved in them deviate from the pure paradigm to achieve better performance. In the process of writing code, inefficieny and bugs are introduced by the human (be it the source or the compiler guy).
So the initial discussion of procedural vs object-oriented vs functional is shifted to the human element: programmers and maintainers. It's about cognition/neuroscience/management/sociology, not about mathematics. The mathematic part of the paradigms have evolved past the point where there is any discussion about the merits. The real discussion is if we, monkeys who think in terms of bananas, deal better with programming language X or Y, which mainly follow paradigm A and/or B.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostYou don't know what you're saying. Modeling is inherently about abstracting information into something that can actually be worked with, and even if you're going to turn around and restrict that to OOP design patterns. For instance C++ doesn't have properties at the language level and so in Qt we use a macro to get around that issue, which is essentially a wrapper around a private piece of data, a getter, and a setter.
Yeah it is kinda slow to have to write those capabilities for abstracting the related design patterns in yourself as opposed to just using one of the languages that already has done most of the work for you in that regard. That doesn't however mean that you can't use or create those standard design patterns yourself. It's slow and painful, and likely to be buggy as you're building up from scratch as opposed to using something well tested but you can do it.
Comment
Comment