Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?] To : comp.programming,comp.object From : topmind Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 10:18 pm Chris Sonnack wrote: > 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. No, I have not. Like you I agree that have their place. However, that place tends to be small-scale and local. > > 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 Your examples did NOT demonstrate any inharent tree-nees to the world and often I found flaws that you sweeped under the rug. For example, the function calls. They bust your damned tree into a graph yet you refuse to acknolege that. Graph graph graph! Eat it! > and don't understand the value of trees--particularly as data > structures. Until I see them donstrated to have real value in my domain, I will avoid them except on a small scale. Remember, I used to be a tree-fan after graduating. It was reality that changed my mind, not dogma. > > > 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. You are coming across as an arrogant prick. How the hell do you define "real programmer"? Some suggest that a "real" programmer is closer to the hardware. Personally I prefer using high-level tools instead of reinventing low-level wheels. I want to search, sort, and cross-reference stuff using high-level languages and tools rather than diddle with linked lists and RAM pointers, for example. But, that is a personal preference. I want to be the conductor or song writer, not the violin player. > > > 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. Why not point us to its website? Some applications such as accounting for small businesses indeed to come in a box. However, line-of-business software tends to be costomized or semi-costomized. The boxed line-of-biz fad that grew the likes of SAP turned out not be live up to the hype. SAP had to add a lot of meta ability to the product such that the "tuners" for custom features logged as many hours as custom developers would have. > > > 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. No, YOU have. You have failed to present anything that is natural tree at a large scale in the biz domain. You have simply not showed it. Your "event-driven" startup drivel was laughable. Tree, my ass. You conveniently redefined "sequence" as being hierarchical. "A" happening before "B" does NOT make anything hierarchical. > > > > 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. You are full of sh8t. An independent audit would not find any goddam pure trees. > > I've challenged your knowledge. > YOU'RE the one who's turned to personal insults several times. An independant audit would show that you started it first. > > > > 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. Then what are some examples where they fail and why do they fail in those circumstances? I don't see any careful analysis from you, only dogma. > > 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. Which is? See above. > > What I have argued against is your claim that they are always better. I have agreed they are often useful on a *small, local scale*. That is not "always". TREES JUST PLAIN DON'T SCALE. > > In fact, I've been doing in reality what you've been claiming (but > in reality failing) to do: arguing against zealotry. Yours. Yeah right. The problem is me. Sure indeed. > > -- > |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | -T- .