Subj : Re: Polymorphism sucks [Was: Paradigms which way to go?] To : comp.programming,comp.object From : Chris Sonnack Date : Wed Sep 21 2005 06:32 pm topmind writes: >> 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. [shrug] Seems so. I'm not the one who just used an entire post to tender little but childish insults. I'm not the one who's utterly failed to understand basic programming principles or simple examples (your failure to grasp basics is once again evident in the other post to this thread). > [snip of irrelevant material, dogma and insults] > > Your examples did NOT demonstrate any inharent tree-nees to the > world and often I found flaws that you sweeped under the rug. The few you actually understood you waved your arms and CLAIMED there were flaws, but you didn't do much towards providing any proof. (See, it takes more than assertions to make a point--it takes examples and analysis to back it up. That's what you repeatedly fail to provide.) The others you never understood despite repeated attempts to make them clear. Not surprising, I guess, now that we've established that you never were a programmer in the first place. For example: > For example, the function calls. They bust your damned tree > into a graph yet you refuse to acknolege that. If you actually understood what a run time call graph was you'd realize instantly it's a tree--even a pure tree by your twisted definition of "pure tree". But since you never did understand it, the best you can do is act like a 12-year-old: > Graph graph graph! Eat it! Whatever. >> 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. As I've said before, for a report writer--as opposed to a real programmer--there probably ISN'T much value in tree-shaped taxonomies, although there might be in tree-shaped data. I know I've created reports that returned hierarchical data. Perhaps you never have. >>> 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. At least I know what I'm talking about. You so obviously don't. > How the hell do you define "real programmer"? Someone who actively writes code. Someone who understand analysis and design. Someone who understands data structures. Someone who knows AT LEAST three or four languages well. You fail on all counts, report writer. >> 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? All our installations are internal, so you can't access ours, but if you go ogle for major CRM vendors and pick the top one, you'll probably have it. >> 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're doing it again in this post. Wasting time being a child. > You have failed to present anything that is natural tree at a > large scale in the biz domain. You have simply not showed it. Sorry, I just don't know how to explain "red" to a blind man. > Your "event-driven" startup drivel was laughable. Failing to understand it, you laugh at it. Typical. > You conveniently redefined "sequence" as being hierarchical. > "A" happening before "B" does NOT make anything hierarchical. Which just demonstrates how badly you misunderstood the example. As I recall, I had to explain several times before you even got close to an understanding, but close was the best you could do. >> 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. I very much doubt that, since it's not at all my style. >>> 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. You've never heard word one of dogma from me--that also is not my style. I challenge you to go find something I said you consider dogma. I'm not the one with the "Life is not tree-shaped" mantra. >> 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? Why am I bother to explain this to someone who apparently doesn't even grasp basic set theory (or at least whined about intimidation when I challenged you)? But, once more, sets are fine when the data is sequential or unordered. When the data is table-like, a table or matrix is a good bet. And when the data is hierarchical, trees are a natural. > TREES JUST PLAIN DON'T SCALE. See, now THAT is just dogma. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .