Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?]
To   : comp.programming,comp.object
From : topmind
Date : Thu Aug 25 2005 07:44 pm

Chris Sonnack wrote:
> topmind writes:
>
> >> Obviously, but that has nothing to do with this discussion other
> >> than to show you just aren't understanding a lot of what I'm saying.
> >
> > Maybe not.
>
> No maybe about it.  It's abundantly clear.
>
> > All I know is that it appears to be bullshit.
>
> Then you don't know squat.
>
> I'm tired of debating with someone who, as far as I can tell, is
> either deliberately trolling or is totally clueless about what
> real programmers actually do and how real programs are actually
> written.


Real programmers know that the real world does not change in a
hierarchical way. Only naive newbies or stubburn tree-huggers think it
does. Like I keep saying, even many die-hard OO proponents agree with
me that trees and inheritance are oversold.


> You do appear to be what someone said early on: just
> a report writer.  One step above a "power user".

"Custom business applications". I did not say "report writer", although
that is often part of it. Anyhow, report writing is not necessarily
simpler or harder than other domains. If it was all easy and simple
then most of it would be packaged into boxed software that would do it
all with a few clicks. Each domain of programming has easy and hard
parts. None is necessarily all easy or all hard and I am not going to
insult programmers in one domain just because I don't like it.

Business applications are often difficult because the "shape" of the
application is influenced by human personalities more than say the laws
of physics or chemistry. Thus, the model does not stay still because
managers, marketers, and customers are fickle and hard to pin down.
Even report builders are often on the phone for hours trying to clarify
and codify exactly what the requester wants. They need the ability to
turn vague "street language" into precise requirements without
confusing the user. They need to understand complex database schemas
and how those schemas do and don't model the domain (industry/domain)
at hand.

You appear to be turning to argument-by-intimidation instead of
presenting evidence that backs your stance. If I was as retarded as you
allege, you should be able to wipe me all over the floor with good
evidence and examples. INSTEAD YOU COME UP SHORT and turn to insults
instead. Sour grapes?

You have not presented a very good case that trees are the ideal data
structure for almost everything. I have agreed that on a small scale
they are often useful. But on a large scale, structures tend to
"degenerate" to graphs, and I allege that sets better handle such than
modified or rigged or forced trees.

I can also agree that perhaps it is subjective. Trees that are modified
(unpure) to handle the deviations may still be better than sets to some
brains. I won't dictate how your brain works best. Trees *can* model
just about everything with enough compromises; I just don't like all
those compromises and find sets more flexible than compromised trees.
Most of your complaints against sets appear to be that you don't have a
feel for how to navigate them. You seem to fear them out of ignorance.
Perhaps you should be forced to be a "mere report writer" for a few
years so that you get comfortable querying non-tree information from
different perspectives. That way you won't feel as lost outside of the
tree forest.

>
> One thing is quite clear: you AIN'T a real programmer.

And you ain't a real evidence presenter.

>
>
> --
> |_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |

-T-

.