what the heck, it's early on a friday. Paul like's meaningless topics here, so here goes.
we FREQUENTLY see this topic in the JiG - Beginners forum. There is some discussion, a bartender/sherrif says "it's been discussed, search around", and a comment about how since the phrase "PURE OO" is not clearly defined, we can't really discuss it - in other words, the question is meaningless.
So, as an experiment, I thought I'd post the quesion here, just to see what happens.
I'm betting this thread dies a quiet and lonely death, but i truly believe it fits the category of "meaningless".
The "OO" reminds me of the "OO" in the Hooters signs. That makes sense, because the restaurants are Sex-Object Oriented. [ December 29, 2006: Message edited by: Frank Silbermann ]
I'm not sure about 'Pure oo', but it is a bit naughty and can certainly qualify for 'oo-eer' or even a wolf-whistle and a gutteral snort. I'm not sure where the 'pure' theory comes from, as shown below:
Whats the difference between a good programming language and a great one? A good language goes out, goes home then goes to bed. A great one goes out, goes to bed then goes home.
This is a very interesting answer taken from Wikipedia
OO languages can be grouped into several broad classes, determined by the extent to which they support all features and functionality of object-orientation and objects: classes, methods, polymorphism, inheritance, and reusability.
* Languages called "pure" OO languages, because everything in them is treated consistently as an object, from primitives such as characters and punctuation, all the way up to whole classes, prototypes, blocks, modules, etc. They were designed specifically to facilitate, even enforce, OO methods. Examples: Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ruby. * Languages designed mainly for OO programming, but with some procedural elements. Examples: Java, Python. * Languages that are historically procedural languages, but have been extended with some OO features. Examples: C++, Fortran 2003, Perl. * Languages with most of the features of objects (classes, methods, inheritance, reusability), but in a distinctly original, even elegant, form. Examples: Oberon (Oberon-1 or Oberon-2). * Languages with abstract data type support, but not all features of object-orientation, sometimes called object-based languages. Examples: Modula-2 (with excellent encapsulation and information hiding), Pliant.
It is an outrageous that some movements, who are against people or organizations who treat others as 'objects', recently added Java on their 'to-watch' list.
Happy New Year to all. Contact me if you want to join the organization I am building, to preach that java is not that bad. [ January 02, 2007: Message edited by: Jesus Angeles ]
I liked the Hybrid idea. I was a big Turbo Pascal fan and when Borland added just a few keywords to make it hybrid OO I was delighted. Now I wish Java was more like Smalltalk. Sigh.
Originally posted by Edwin Dalorzo (who quoted Wiki): Languages called "pure" OO languages, because everything in them is treated consistently as an object, from primitives such as characters and punctuation, all the way up to whole classes, prototypes, blocks, modules, etc. They were designed specifically to facilitate, even enforce, OO methods. Examples: Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ruby.
Yeah, Ruby treats all primitives as objects. Even nil (null) is an object. Oh, and it lets you program procedurally yet all the loose code and functions become part of a root object. There's no escaping objects in Ruby, though it is possible to write a simple program in Java that doesn't instantiate objects.
I think the Wiki selection here shows that Java is not a "pure" OO language, but if I ever heard someone say they chose to use a different language solely on the basis that it is more "pure" than Java... I think I would have to slap them.
For a topic in the meaningless drivel forum, this discussion does seem to be more "serious" than "drivel"...
I think the Wiki selection here shows that Java is not a "pure" OO language, but if I ever heard someone say they chose to use a different language solely on the basis that it is more "pure" than Java... I think I would have to slap them.
Agreed. While choosing a language based on OO purity may be acceptable in academia or personal projects, it is a slappable offense elsewhere.
More acceptable "language based" reasons probably include... Cost savings due to learning curve. Available features, libaries, or services, with language, tools, or framework. Available pool of developers due to language popularity. etc.
Henry
Ernest Friedman-Hill
,
author and iconoclast
staff
[Henry]: For a topic in the meaningless drivel forum, this discussion does seem to be more "serious" than "drivel"...
Well, as fred noted in the first post, we've seen it many times in the serious forums, and it usually seems pretty silly there. Posting it here was an experiment by fred. A recent "serious" incarnation (almost certainly, the one that inspired fred's post here) may be found here for those who wish to take it seriously.
We are talking Led Zeppelin here, rather than Smokey Robinson, Linda Ronstadt or Britney Spears or any of the countless others who have had lyrics or titles like this, right?
Originally posted by Max Habibi: That's a weird list: for one thing, it makes no mention of C# which is, AFIK, just as OO as java, if not moreso.
I'll now commence to duck flames
You'll have to explain duck flames to Ilja Preuss, he had just corrected me out of the channel for something that made perfect sense to me, but would make a duck in flames look an easy to understand object compared to keeping the javaranch community thriving in the face of challenges such as this.
Which is why I proposed this discussion to fred rosenberger in the first place.
I noticed over the last few days, the return from ultimatebb.cgi is now in MCBS or someting, before it would open in my editor and I could bang around 80,000 keystrokes without a problem.
I know this problem well and expect with the implementation of Unicode or MBCS or whatever was implemented, the challenge of maintaining a thriving community will parallel the post of fred rosenberger:
it's early on a Friday we FREQUENTLY see this topic in the JiG - Beginners forum. There is some discussion, a bartender/sherrif says "it's been discussed, search around", and a comment about how since the phrase "PURE OO" is not clearly defined, we can't really discuss it - in other words, the question is meaningless.
Well I was speaking to Bocephus Aberdeen McKinzie moments ago, he belongs to a religion called Moose Slim, who's headquarters in Sackcrete , Alabama belives Friday is Kin-Youbi: "Gold Day" or "money day": If the Sackcrete is pure, so shall be the Objects constructed and the draft for payment by the owner will be accepted at the Saloon for payment of last months liquor bills.
If this thread dies a quiet and lonely death, then it would fit in the category of "meaningless".
I see from the roster of posters and their chosen wording that this topic is far from meaningless. Frank Silbermann's remarks have special meaning for me, in that the commercial smile only seen at the retailer of entertainment cited is a metaphor for anything which is complete in it's implementation and pure in it's avoidance of outcry. A common example is idiomatics which would be misinterpreted by other Nationalities as negativity, rather than the rich conveyance of information that is intrinsic in the idiomatics of most cultures.
We do not have the luxury here of Oooooooooooh, baby, baby...
Generally, people who make gross generalizations are wrong - as is the generalization under discussion here. What I see as the failure, is the placing on new coders gross generalizations - such as in beginner - which may have great utility on 80,000 lines of source, such as Character.java - but when used on beginners to explain what is going on puts them in the position of wrestling with project-manager burdens which at the lowest level should stop at the New Team Lead. level.
That cleanly sums up my concerns in the issue, perhaps if we can explain Fog Hat to MBCS cultures, with deep-branch prediction of semantic analysis .... then we might be able to let this thread die a quiet and lonely death.
I doubt it.
[ December 30, 2006: Message edited by: Nicholas Jordan ] [ April 29, 2007: Message edited by: Nicholas Jordan ]
We are talking Led Zeppelin here, rather than Smokey Robinson, Linda Ronstadt or Britney Spears or any of the countless others who have had lyrics or titles like this, right?
Actually, I was thinking Smokey. Thanks for asking!
Originally posted by Jim Yingst: [EFH]: Oooooooooooh, baby, baby...
We are talking Led Zeppelin here, rather than Smokey Robinson, Linda Ronstadt or Britney Spears or any of the countless others who have had lyrics or titles like this, right?
No, no, it's Chrissie Hynde on "Tattooed Love Boys" from the first Pretenders album, released on vinyl in 1980. Those were formative years: Sixteen years old, playing with Basic on graph paper ("910 GOTO, GOTO, GOTO"). Named my first guitar "Chrissie." Back then, I kept my albums in pristine condition. Now, I scratch the **** out of them on a pair of 1200's. Learned to beat juggle on a pair of Miles Davis Doo-Bop albums, spending hours repeating the same 2 measures, left turntable, then right, then left... Now, that's an infinite loop. One of the arms wasn't balanced correctly (Technics' manuals still seem to be written for "audiophiles," and I didn't know any better), so one of those records is far more trashed than the other. Crackles like an old gramophone -- which at one time was regarded as undesirable surface noise, but now... Uh, what was the original question? [ December 30, 2006: Message edited by: marc weber ]
Originally posted by Henry Wong: Agreed. While choosing a language based on OO purity may be acceptable in academia or personal projects, it is a slappable offense elsewhere.
Henry
Why ?
Note - I understand:
And it is "Available pool of developers due to language popularity. etc." that I take as a " direct challenge " - not because I take it as challenge in a combative sense, but because I can spot this out of all the Rock & Roller's attempts to keep the Thread alive by bloating it with Meaningless Drivel < !-- ... to the point of code-bloat, no less !-->
Mr. Stroustrup has noted some inconsistencies in popular linguistics v. effective linguistics. I will boldly go where no clown has gone and introduce a new programming model:Let us take for visualization a scanner {not:Scanner} at one checkout lane at Generic Large Retailer. We will say for the moment while I am building a foundation for the model that the device has twelve mirrors, each of which must be aligned correctly to achieve a reaonable balance between let's say a +/- dichotomy with six mirrors on each side. Six of the mirrors are to place the laser onto the target tag, six are to feed the reflected signal onto some sort of reader/receptor somewhere under glass that will conceptually form a barrier where we can concern ourselves with the programming of one or more Threads that will not block waiting for System.in.
Given the Sidewinder programming paradigm , we have the rattle-tail - which I will parody as The Thirteenth Mirror.
Starting with Fifteen Ways to Stack a Cat, two of those ways have just been dispensed with with the Twin 3208's metaphor, leaving thirteen - twelve of which are accounted for by the twelve mirrors in the scanner. Each of which is properly the domain of established engineering, and I will assume those have been done correctly for the moment.
I take the zero'th mirror to be the Thirteen'th mirror, rattle on the tail of the sidewinder, and define it thus:
<alert> Are you ready folks ? .... Are you Really Really Ready ? Many of the workers in this Thread {isn't linguistics fun ? :roll: } are Masters of wordplay. Caveat emptor, except as noted in the Caveat Correction Manual. </alert>
Originally posted by Ben Souther: ...I think it had to do with who wrote "Oooooooooooh, baby, baby..."
Oh, yes. Thank you.
Apparently, what I'm trying to say is that music pressed on vinyl can be considered an object -- a physical thing that can be manipulated on a turntable to create new music, � la musique concr�te...
Traditionally, classical or serious music begins as an abstraction, as musical notation on paper or other medium, which is then produced into audible music. Musique concr�te strives to begin with the "concrete" sounds, experiment with them, and abstract them into musical compositions.
[EFH]: Actually, I was thinking Smokey. Thanks for asking!
To be fair, Smokey Robinson's song has much more of a pure OO. Robert Plant tends to sound more like OH-AH-HAAH or other pyrotechnics. So your answer is better. I guess.
[marc]: No, no, it's Chrissie Hynde on "Tattooed Love Boys" from the first Pretenders album, released on vinyl in 1980.
What is this "vinyl" of which you speak, Ancient One?
OK, I remember vinyl, and did in fact own several record over the years. Unfortunately my sisters has absolutely no ability to avoid scratching up anything they came in contact with, and so for my purposes the format is now primarily associated with horribly mutilated sounds. I can see wher eit might have had appeal for others, but not in my family, sadly.
I couldn't find a clip of "ooo baby baby" from this song, so I'll have to take your word for it that it's a goodie. But the Pretenders were always pretty cool, so that's not too hard to imagine.
Originally posted by fred rosenberger: what the heck, it's early on a friday. Paul like's meaningless topics here, so here goes.
we FREQUENTLY see this topic in the JiG - Beginners forum. There is some discussion, a bartender/sherrif says "it's been discussed, search around", and a comment about how since the phrase "PURE OO" is not clearly defined, we can't really discuss it - in other words, the question is meaningless.
So, as an experiment, I thought I'd post the quesion here, just to see what happens.
I'm betting this thread dies a quiet and lonely death, but i truly believe it fits the category of "meaningless".
Processing... The post has been deleted.
That's the return from the script, I deleted the original post by me after sleeping on the censure - beginner has no place being led into this.
As you say, it was an experiment ... given that it was started late on Friday, and it is a Holiday weekend, this occured largely outside of conventional business hours. I notice the traffic is much greater during regular business hours.
For the record, I wish to note that I got on the script for the worlds oldest rfid concern. Their about page states: "Why do we elaborate so?" and goes on to explain why. Seeing this, I came in like a P-51 with all wing-barrels locked full on.
The reply I got back is telling.
" Brother do I like your style. I own this place and I am pulling your email out of the forest of emails to handle personally."
His cell phone is now on the speed-dialer of my cell phone.
I can see this is not going to work the issue we originally targeted, if the posters wish to continue - let them do so of their own choice and effort.
The question does not classifiy, except as reliability engineering.
I know exactly which sentence blew it up, I deal with this sort of ... mindgames is in fact the correct word ... routinely, as my regular duty in my regular day job.
That sentence is hyper-linked to a discussion with a world class cryptographer by the name of Cesar Rabek - in which he states that he would probably cite me, his email address works off the A.C.M. server.
Post by:autobot
I brought this back from the farm where they grow the tiny ads:
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking