Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : topmind
Date : Tue Jun 28 2005 05:59 pm



Chris Sonnack wrote:
> topmind writes:
>
> > Brush Teeth
> > ....*.find.toothbrush
> > ....*.find.toothpaste.tube
> > ....*.open.toothpaste.tube
> > ..........o.Put.thumb.and.pointer.finger.on.cap
> > ..........o.turn.fingers.counter-clockwise.
> > ....*.clean.teeth
> > ..........o.put.brush.on.teeth
> > ..........o.move.back.and.fourth.vigorously
> > ..........o.repeat.above.step.100.times.
> > ....*.clean.up
> > ..........o.rinse.brush
> > ................+.turn.on.water
> > ................+.put.head.of.brush.under
> > ..................running.water.for.30.seconds
> > ................+.turn.off.water.
> > ..........o.put.cap.back.on.toothpaste
> > ..........o.put.all.items.back.in.cabinet
> >
> > Most people would produce a fiarly similar hierarchy without even
> > seeing this one.
>
> LOL!  You mean to say it is so naturally tree-shaped that most people
> would naturally produce a tree?
>

I have agreed that *people* naturally relate to trees. Thus, they tend
to produce algorithms that have a tree-shaped division of tasks. It is
not that tasks are inherently are tree-shaped, it is that people are
more comfortable using trees to describe them.

However, on a larger scale algorithms are not pure trees because
usually named tasks (subroutines) eventually come in to play as we
scale up. Subroutines break the tree because they are cross-branch
links.

IOW, on a small scale or *informal* discussions (which is what the
above is), trees are a decent useful lie. 

-T-

.