Re: objects and forth

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, David J. Goehrig <[email protected]> wrote:

>=20
> Oh I agree with this to an extent.  This is true of the
> Java crowd for sure.  Not all OO-ers fully believe in this
> nonsense though.

"only a little bit peregnent"?


> Well, most Smalltalkers tend to avoid this black box idea.=20
> They are generally more than willing to go in and modify a
> low level class like Object just to make their idiom work
> correctly.  For example it is standard practice to add a
> method like:
>=20
> =09isMyClass
> =09=09^ false
>=20
> to the root level Object class, and then in your own class
> implement the corresponding method
>=20
> =09isMyClass
> =09=09^ true
>=20
> Just so you can test if an object is a member of your class
> or not, without triggering the debugger at runtime. =20


What does OO call 'comefrom'?

http://www.tads.org/t3doc/doc/sysman/icext.htm


> general concept isn't so much mandatory ignorance, but
> rather results in a culture of willful ignorance, because

Only Lebri Software people use OO?

"Naturally you want to treat these modules as =E2=80=9Cblack boxes=E2=80=9D=
 and not make any changes to them. Treating each module as a unit avoids th=
e need to learn the internals, and avoids the risk of introducing errors in=
 work  which may have been well tested by use in dozens of different projec=
ts. In addition, the developers may only want to release running modules, n=
ot the source."

THE resion OO is so populer that that it easely allows you to 'weld the hoo=
d closed'

> one doesn't need to think about what they're doing.=20
> It doesn't actually have to be that way.

=20
If 'one doesn't need to think about what they're doing' results in 'a cultu=
re of willful ignorance' and 'a culture of willful ignorance' results in 'a=
 culture of mandatory ignorance' then it actually does have to be that way.


>=20
> That said, when you jump through hoops just to make your
> idiom work, your idiom is probably broken.  But hey,
> that's why the Gang of Four wrote the Patterns book, to
> describe all the different hoops they typically encounter.
>=20
> > And you are surprized that they all idiots teaching
> others how to be idiots?
>=20
> Actually, judging by one of my friend's experiences as
> an associate professor at one of the best Comp Sci
> Universities in the country (a top 20 school for sure),
> he's got PhD students who don't know how to open
> files off a CD.  So I'd avoid saying we've got
> idiots teaching idiots, just that we have CompSci people who

What 'Best Universities in the country' lets someone with out a highschool =
level education into there PhD programme?


> In my opinion, the structure of academia is to blame for
> decline in programming. =20

Unfortunatly it's not just 'The Ph.D. Octopus'(http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp=
/octopus.html)  It's the INTIRE education(sic) system.=20
We (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DX0vQAdDFGMA  around 50-51 minutes in h=
e talks about tinkering.)=20

We have an anti-learning culture. The education system job is to produce pe=
ople that only "participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to=
 possess it"

KidSim:Programming Agents without a Programming Language
"We have come to the conclusion that since all previous languages have been=
 unsuccessful by the criterion described here, /language itself is the prob=
lem/. It does not matter what the syntax is. Learning another language is d=
ifficult for most people. The solution is to get rid of the programming lan=
guage."


We have a culture that engenders a
> whole range of behaviors and thought processes that are
> contrary to developing a fundamental understanding of actual
> reality.=20

"Reality" is only what people have "Realized"
"Plato's heaven" is not "Reality"

As truTV says, "Not Reality. Actuality."


http://www.crcsite.org/actuality.htm



=0A=0A=0A