ok what are the rules
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
You go girl!
Uh, that's a guy. Check his bio. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
OOPS! Sorry... I've never met a guy named Ashley. Very cool :)
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
The Grand Negus wrote:
The size of the team has nothing to do with this.
Which shows you have zero idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to OOP and organization. It's also apparent you've never worked in a large team environment either.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Which shows you have zero idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to OOP and organization.
That may well be.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's also apparent you've never worked in a large team environment either.
But that's simply not true. Nevertheless, to make the PAL 3000 a reality, we're going to have to coordinate the input from literally hundreds of volunteer programmers, and we've got a unique plan ready for how to do that - without objects!
-
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things
It is. But since all the verbs then end up under the "person" object, we can just assume it exists and drop the superfluous prefix. Which brings us back to straight procedural (or Plain English) style code.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects.
We're not "splitting anything" in that sense. We're putting all the nouns in one place, all the verbs in another. Which means we never have to wonder where anything is. Or where to put a verb that operates on more than one kind of object.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely
And we think that's a good idea. The closer to the "real world" the model is, the more predictably and intuitively it will perform.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
by adhering to normal english grammar
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But all you're really doing is following another convention.
Yes, but it's one we're all trained in, practiced in, and that we use, constantly, everyday. I'm using it now, and so are you.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical.
We recognize that not all are trained in the same "convention". That's why we think native French speakers should program in Plain French, not Plain English.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'.
I don't think it's my bias that makes the Star Trek characters communicate with the android Data in English; nor is it my bias that make
Some parts of this sound suspiciously like OpenDoc, which was an idea way before it's time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDoc[^]
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things
It is. But since all the verbs then end up under the "person" object, we can just assume it exists and drop the superfluous prefix. Which brings us back to straight procedural (or Plain English) style code.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects.
We're not "splitting anything" in that sense. We're putting all the nouns in one place, all the verbs in another. Which means we never have to wonder where anything is. Or where to put a verb that operates on more than one kind of object.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely
And we think that's a good idea. The closer to the "real world" the model is, the more predictably and intuitively it will perform.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
by adhering to normal english grammar
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
But all you're really doing is following another convention.
Yes, but it's one we're all trained in, practiced in, and that we use, constantly, everyday. I'm using it now, and so are you.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical.
We recognize that not all are trained in the same "convention". That's why we think native French speakers should program in Plain French, not Plain English.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'.
I don't think it's my bias that makes the Star Trek characters communicate with the android Data in English; nor is it my bias that make
The Grand Negus wrote:
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Fair enough. But I imagine your compiler still has strict rules as to specifically which sentences are actually meaningful to it. But I'll agree that it does seem like it would be much easier to learn those rules, rather than some completely new syntax. But I still think you're placing way too much importance on the syntax. Someone new to computers still has no idea what a variable is, how the internals work, which functions/classes are available to make use of etc etc. But it does seem like you've made it considerably easier for someone without any programming background to create a program. And that is an achievement, in my book. I don't believe it could be of much use to professional programmers, but it's an achievement nonetheless.
The Grand Negus wrote:
communicate with the android Data in English
A computer's ability to *understand* English commands doesn't necessarily mean it *compiles* English commands... but I guess it would make things a whole lot easier. I believe there are already cars on the market which can accept voice commands - but I doubt very much that they're programmed in English :).
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Which is familiar to all (English speakers).
Fair enough. But I imagine your compiler still has strict rules as to specifically which sentences are actually meaningful to it. But I'll agree that it does seem like it would be much easier to learn those rules, rather than some completely new syntax. But I still think you're placing way too much importance on the syntax. Someone new to computers still has no idea what a variable is, how the internals work, which functions/classes are available to make use of etc etc. But it does seem like you've made it considerably easier for someone without any programming background to create a program. And that is an achievement, in my book. I don't believe it could be of much use to professional programmers, but it's an achievement nonetheless.
The Grand Negus wrote:
communicate with the android Data in English
A computer's ability to *understand* English commands doesn't necessarily mean it *compiles* English commands... but I guess it would make things a whole lot easier. I believe there are already cars on the market which can accept voice commands - but I doubt very much that they're programmed in English :).
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this.
Could it be that management or bosses pressure them away from writing pretty code?
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
You can blame management for a lot of things, but I don't think this is one of them. I have had cases where I wanted to fix up bad code instead of add another hack on top and that got vetoed for schedule or "stability" concerns, but I think that is a different situation; the code wasn't pretty in the first place. The desire to create clean and aesthetically pleasing code is something some people have. It can't be managed away. Of course, I've also never seen a case where it was encouraged either. So I think management is blind to the aesthetic qualities of code. (I'm sure there are some exceptions, it would be nice if there were more)
Matt Gerrans
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And having to use the shift key is not a show stopper for me.
Which just goes to show you that you have never drunk all your brain cells away. :)
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Really though, if syntax was the only issue in debate (which it's not). I still wouldn't be crazy about it.
That has always been what I have said. We need something to gain from a language. At least C# has some benefits to the programmer beyond just a "new" (or in the case of PEP: incredibly ancient) syntax. In fact, there is so much you have to give up to program in PEP that half of the software written today wouldn't be possible to write in PEP. No games, no simulations, no scientific visualization, no concurrent massive parallel problem solving.... He may want "HAL 9000", but he is pushing a Hal 9000BC!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Which just goes to show you that you have never drunk all your brain cells away.
Yeah, but I'd like to think I made a dent. :~ :-D
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
He may want "HAL 9000", but he is pushing a Hal 9000BC!
Yup. I see it as one step forward and two steps back. At least The Grand Negus and crew has entertainment value.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Um, so what are you saying? It isn't good for solving these kinds of problems?
We're saying it's good for solving all kinds of problems, from text editors to compilers, from file managers to page layout programs. But it is not the best choice for everything, obviously - nothing fits that bill.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I don't have any confusion if what you are promoting is a human-computer interface of the future (a la Star Trek), but you seem to have promoted this thing as the Superior Solution to All Problems (TM) of the present in many other posts. Maybe you need to more clearly define exactly what it is you are advertising in The Lounge.
Well, try this for further information: [^]. I think it's in the Soapbox, but they're pretty much the same to me.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
By the way, you said in another post that you are a millionaire; if that is the case, I really don't understand why you don't go ahead and pay for your advertising. You would be buying yourself some good will in addition.
We did, at the start, buy ads here. Lots of 'em. But they didn't translate into sales, so we stopped buying. We also published several articles here, but the powers that be deleted them on grounds that we were never quite able to determine. Besides, I'm not a "millionaire" any more - if by that term you mean someone with at least a million dollars in assets. I've made millions over the years, to be sure - and spent most of it, primarily on research of various sorts. I've still got enough so I don't have to "work" in the conventional sense, but it's not enough to throw away on ads that aren't paying for themselves.
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
-
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
-
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Yeah, I am still waiting for it ...
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
The Grand Negus wrote:
Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby")
Hope he grows up to be a C++ programmer :-D
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
And who is "we?" Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name? I don't see how you expect people to shell out $100 for apparent vaporware, based on one sample (which may or may not have any connection to the txt file and a "Plain English compiler"), when you don't even want to reveal your name. Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person? If this were the real thing, it seems like there would be tons of examples and a free (if limited) version of the compiler for demonstration purposes. You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this? Where is the code for the travelling salesman problem?
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
You really did buy ads here? How much did you spend? I never saw them. When was this?
He did earlier this year.
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
there were few discussions about rules for programming few days ago i am working in a company which is newly started and only two programmers there and no one to guide except CP so what are the rules which you follow and think i should also follow :):)
-
Here's the short answer, and we can go from there: we've developed a wide variety of major applications - including super-fast native-code compilers and super-smooth wysiwyg page layout programs - conveniently and efficiently without those things. So we haven't found them helpful or necessary. And we're more than willing to share our code and our ideas so others can see another way of doing things. Further comment on objects can be found here in this thread: [^] And further information about why we think our product is important can be found here: [^] Our two-page manifesto is on our website (www.osmosian.com).
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE? Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative? This statement is false.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Shog9 wrote:
IMHO, if your team is determined to argue, they'll find something to argue about.
No doubt.
Shog9 wrote:
Orthogonality should be a goal in and of itself - whether the code is orthogonal or procedural.
I use the term in the sense of "keeping separate things separate". It does not seem reasonable to us to hang verbs underneath nouns - or nouns underneath verbs, for that matter. Procedural programming tends to keep the two separate. In one 25,000-line Pascal program we wrote some time ago, for example, we only had two source files, called "nouns" and "verbs". It was a remarkably convenient and effective organization. In case you haven't run across my standard dissertation regarding cookies and ovens and baking, I'll repeat it here: In the object approach, a cookie is an object, and an oven is an object. Fine so far. But should we say "cookie.bake(oven)" or "oven.bake(cookie)" or something else, like "abstract.bake(cookie,oven)". We think all these options are unnatural, and prefer this actual Plain English code:
A cookie is a...
An oven is a...
To bake some cookies in an oven...Where the nouns and the verbs are "related" to the verb in the routine header (the third line above), but do not "hang" underneath each other - or under some artificial abstract class - as they would in the object approach. And we find the syntax much easier to think about, type in, and read, to boot. On a more philosophical note, we all know that cookies don't bake themselves, nor do ovens bake cookies without assistance (as the object model would lead us to believe). Someone bakes cookies in an oven. But the object approach - in great part due to the philosophical orientation of its creator - tries to ignore the existence of the active agent who is necessarily "outside" the system. If you get my drift...
The Grand Negus wrote:
I use the term in the sense of "keeping separate things separate".
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate. When coupled you've effectively defeated encapsulation to an extent. The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one. I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Amar Chaudhary wrote:
i did program in foxpro using procedural approach and i know that i missed oop that time so much yes i build fairly complex programs using it but if had support of oop then it would take much less time so my point is 1) oop saves time 2) easy to debug 3) reduces complexity 4) make code easily understandable 5) and in the process of evolution oop is winning 6) and why is that more people are using oop concepts 7) when every thing is an object how you can escape oop and the big thing do you know why dinosaurs extinct
If your birthdate here is correct, you are about half my age. Which means I remember things - lived through things - that you haven't. I remember, for example, when General Motors was the clear winner in the evolution of the automobile industry, and the thought of a Japanese car on American highways was nothing but a joke. More to the point, however, I remember when the hierarchical/network approach to database was almost universally accepted as the best. In the "process of evolution", as you call it, this approach was not only winning, but had virtually won; it was backed by IBM and every other major player at the time and no one else stood a chance. But then along came Dr. Codd with a five-page paper describing the "spartan simplicity" of his relational approach, and things changed. But not right away. I quote the dedication found in his final book, written some 25 years later: "To fellow pilots and aircrew in the Royal Air Force during World War II and the dons at Oxford. These people were the source of my determination to fight for what I believed was right during the ten or more years in which government, industry, and commerce were strongly opposed to the relational approach to database management." I suspect I'll be writing a similar dedication to my final work 25 years from now. Now regarding the dinosaurs, let me be blunt. Clearly, you're not old enough, nor have you studied enough, to give me an accurate history of trends and events in data processing just 50 years past. So don't go pretending you know what happened thousands of years ago. For all you know, the dinosaurs might have been destroyed in a cataclysmic flood, and evolution wasn't even a factor.
You do realize that your tone is entirely pedantic... don't you? Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
You've got to be misunderstanding what I mean by framework. Let's try a different example. In what language are all the articles on this site written? C? C++? C#? VB? No! They're all written in English with examples written in these sub-languages. Back to the other example. My calculus book is written in English. It is not a German calculus book, it is an English calculus book, though it probably contains the same or similar formulae. The "framework" is English: the title, the preface, the chapter headings, the introductions, the explanations of the formulae, the problem statements, etc.
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
a Plain English solution to the problem will be as good as any other - and definitely easier to read
Let's see it then.
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
I was searching through the patent database for an idea I had, and found that someone patented an algorithm that claims to solve the travelling salesman problem. Don't have the link on hand, but a google search should bring it up.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Matt Gerrans wrote:
And who is "we?"
"We" is me - Gerry Rzeppa, Founder and Director of Research and Development of Relational Systems Corporation (www.era-sql.com), Grand Negus of the Osmosian Order of Plain English Programmers (www.osmosian.com), as tastefully pictured in an oil-style painting in my profile here - and whoever else is reading and/or reviewing these posts with me. Sometimes, my son Dan, who wrote the compiler with me; sometimes my wife, who has labored faithfully by my side for over 20 years; and sometimes Chuckles (our 15-month-old "miracle baby"), who contributes only grease marks on the screen at this stage - but for whom the entire enterprise exists. Sometimes I use the term "we" simply to indicate that the view I'm expressing is the official position of the Osmosian Order.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Why do you use a pseudonym instead of a real name?
One of the reasons we developed the Plain English development system was to teach kids how to program - without all the unnecessary clutter of "popular" languages. Our product for kids - still under development - is packaged in a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside there are various "feelies" including a leather pouch, a random number generator that looks suspiciously like a 10-sided die, a magnifying glass for viewing individual pixels on screen and printed matter, and a precision timepiece filled with sand. These items are accompanied by an engaging story that begins: "It was the Day of the Choosing. I went out, long before dawn, with the other boys from my village..." Eventually, our young hero meets a very old Osmosian Master, takes the Osmosian oath - "I promise never to program in any language but my own" - and learns to program in the abiding style of the Ancient Ones. All of the Osmosian trappings are directed, primarily, to this young audience; and simply because we like to have fun.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
you don't even want to reveal your name.
I've stated my name many times on this site. See above for the most recent instance.
Matt Gerrans wrote:
Can't tell how fishy that all would seem to a rational person?
Yes and no. When we first appeared here (last February) many immediately "jumped all over us" for various reasons. But Marc Clifton, a regular here,
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I would be willing to bet that most Plain English parsing engines are written in some kind of OOP language.
But ours isn't written that way. And we prefered not to write it that way - though we could have. And we believe that the ease with which we produced it, and the efficiency with which it runs, testifies to the fact that we made the right decision.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Someone with your experience should know that, at some point, you have to bridge the gap between the user and the chips in the machine.
Of course. And we did bridge that gap - we wrote a Plain English compiler, in Plain English, that generates native Intel machine code.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
OOP languages that compile down to real code are the best option we have right now.
We don't think so. We prefer to program in Plain English. Without objects. And we do.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit that.
Because we've done it both ways and prefer Plain English without objects.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Sounds like you're stuck in the past.
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I read your definition of how Plain English works, and you described it in an object-oriented manner... ears, brain, calculator... I hate to burst your bubble but those are objects.
Objects in the sense of "nouns", yes. But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with. Our calculators don't calculate; they are used by us to calculate with. This is the fundamental issue we have with objects - they way they bind verbs underneath the nouns. This, we believe, is fundamentally wrong - a bad paradigm. All the other flaws of the object approach stem from this error.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with.
EHHHHH! Wrong. Our ears do in fact transmit the vibrations to the brain through electrical signals that are interpreted by our neural processes. All of this is encapsulated within the human body. Our body runs. Our legs through the combined effort of our muscles and joints move, after receiving signals from our nervous system from the direction of the brain which is encapsulated in the human body as a single object. There is also the person interpreting and causes the contemplation of extra dimensional encapsulation of the mind and spirit, but there is no denying that the mechanical encapsulation of the body is in fact Object Oriented and quite a success in communicating a very complex unified system.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder