Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?] To : comp.programming,comp.object From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 02:39 pm topmind writes: >> 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. > > [...] Like I keep saying, even many die-hard OO proponents agree > with me that trees and inheritance are oversold. I agree with that, too. But, despite your occasionally claiming that's your argument, that is NOT what you've been arguing. YOU have been arguing that trees are bad and wrong. THAT'S incorrect. >> 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", Regardless. You simply don't talk like a programmer, and I've talked with programmers for 30 years, so I've seen all types. It's been clear from our discussion that you operate as a high level of, probably, putting components together, and therefore it's understandable why you don't follow many of my examples and don't understand the value of trees--particularly as data structures. > Anyhow, report writing is not necessarily simpler or harder than > other domains. I know you want to believe that, but--and we've covered this point before--it's just not true. REAL programming is harder. A lot harder. > 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. Exactly. And a huge amount of it is. My group deals with a major application *designed* for businesses to use out of the box. > You appear to be turning to argument-by-intimidation instead of > presenting evidence that backs your stance. As I've said before, the only thing that could possibly intimidate you is being challenged to demonstrate that you do know what you are talking about. You've dodged every time. > If I was as retarded as you allege, you should be able to wipe > me all over the floor with good evidence and examples. As I said before, I believe an independant audit would show that I've done just that. You're just like a child who refuses to acknowledge cold, hard facts. I've challenged your knowledge. YOU'RE the one who's turned to personal insults several times. > You have not presented a very good case that trees are the ideal > data structure for almost everything. If you think that's been my position at any time during this thread, you've understood even less of it than I've suggested. I've never said it, I've never suggested it, I've never thought it. > Most of your complaints against sets appear to be that you don't > have a feel for how to navigate them. Nope. Not an issue. For one thing, I don't have any complaints about sets as sets. I use them as I do any tool--when they are appropriate. What I have argued against is your claim that they are always better. In fact, I've been doing in reality what you've been claiming (but in reality failing) to do: arguing against zealotry. Yours. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .