Ubuntu's Unity Written In Qt/QML For "Unity Next"

[Luke_Wolf]

You shouldn't create any abstractions. You don't have to create abstractions with C++.

You don't know what you're saying. Modeling is inherently about abstracting information into something that can actually be worked with, and even if you're going to turn around and restrict that to OOP design patterns. For instance C++ doesn't have properties at the language level and so in Qt we use a macro to get around that issue, which is essentially a wrapper around a private piece of data, a getter, and a setter.

Using C with non-standard emulation of OOP instead of C++ which supports OOP is retarded.

Yeah it is kinda slow to have to write those capabilities for abstracting the related design patterns in yourself as opposed to just using one of the languages that already has done most of the work for you in that regard. That doesn't however mean that you can't use or create those standard design patterns yourself. It's slow and painful, and likely to be buggy as you're building up from scratch as opposed to using something well tested but you can do it.

[dee.]

Actually yes, yes they are. They're exactly the same thing because object is just a fancy word for "noun" and saying "There is a red apple" is saying that a location object named "there" has an "apple" object which has a property "color" that is set to "red", which also has implicit properties of being a food and a type of fruit and so on...

Actually, no. "Object" in grammar has a very specific meaning - it's part of a sentence structure. In many languages the basic structure is subject - predicate - object (although the order varies depending on the language). The subject defines the actor, the predicate defines the type of action, and the object defines the target of the action. For example: "Luke eats Apple" - the object in this sentence is "Apple" ("Luke" is the subject, and "eats" is the predicate).

Whereas, in programming, an object can be - depending on the language - anything. A variable, a function, a reference, a module... any of these things can be objects. In a language that treats functions as first-class objects, such as Python for example, a function is an object, but grammatically speaking, a function is a predicate - it defines the type of action that is applied on some other object(s). The definition of "object" in programming is much more flexible than the grammatical definition.

[Luke_Wolf]

Actually, no. "Object" in grammar has a very specific meaning - it's part of a sentence structure. In many languages the basic structure is subject - predicate - object (although the order varies depending on the language). The subject defines the actor, the predicate defines the type of action, and the object defines the target of the action. For example: "Luke eats Apple" - the object in this sentence is "Apple" ("Luke" is the subject, and "eats" is the predicate).

Whereas, in programming, an object can be - depending on the language - anything. A variable, a function, a reference, a module... any of these things can be objects. In a language that treats functions as first-class objects, such as Python for example, a function is an object, but grammatically speaking, a function is a predicate - it defines the type of action that is applied on some other object(s). The definition of "object" in programming is much more flexible than the grammatical definition.

Okay that's a fair point and I blame the people who came up with the name OOP for making the terminology break (and entrenched vocabulary means that it can't be fixed now to something like "Modeling Based Design"). It doesn't change that language as a whole is object oriented in the programming sense of the term though, because in the programming sense that sentence says that I as a person object am interacting with an apple object by the method of eating it.

[dee.]

Okay that's a fair point and I blame the people who came up with the name OOP for making the terminology break (and entrenched vocabulary means that it can't be fixed now to something like "Modeling Based Design"). It doesn't change that language as a whole is object oriented in the programming sense of the term though, because in the programming sense that sentence says that I as a person object am interacting with an apple object by the method of eating it.

Well, sure. Although strictly speaking, objects themselves are anonymous, and it's only the references to them that are named. So it would be more like an object of type person that is pointed to by reference "Luke" is using the method "eat" (or if functions are first-class, the method pointed to by the reference "eat") on the object pointed to by the reference "apple".

[Sergio]

This ^

OOP is purely about modeling things, their interactions, their properties, and their relationships with other things. There are nice language specific tools that make this easier for you such as classes and properties but they're just tools that embody standard design patterns. The blocking out direct access thing for instance is to model how you interact with things, lets say you have a thermostat you're not directly reading the temperature setting off of the central heating, nor are you setting it directly, you're going through the thermostat which is using the central heating's interface to control it. Yes you could bypass the thermostat but you'd need something to read off of the central heating's interface...

Also object orientation as I've stated previously in this thread isn't specific to programming, it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used. So english for instance is OO go a couple pages back for the breakdown. In relational databases there's this process called normalization which is really a fancy term for breaking things down into objects. Even if you don't work with databases normalization is still a great thing to learn because of that, because it helps you figure out how you design your objects and how things break down. Then we've got the mark-up languages which are really just data languages where you're organizing data into objects, but you'll note that markup languages are completely declarative they have no methods or anything else really other than constructs for nouns yet they are OO. So yeah...

Obviously OOP is a language-independent thing.
Now, you insist in putting object-orientation on an undeserved privileged level. First you say that OO is not specific to programming, but "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used". You obviously have never studied mathematical logic, which gives the foundations of formal languagues. You haven't seen how propositional calculus or first-order calculus is developed here, and you obviously ignore connections between syntax and semantics, as seen in the completness theorems of both languages. Because both calculi are essential to language, and therefore to linguistics, and because (believe me) there is no OO in mathematical logic, either explicitly or implicitly, your argument is quite, if not plain, wrong.
Now, there is a huge difference between natural and formal languages; if english were really OO (which it isn't), that wouldn't suffice to back your claim that "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used", which, as previously seen, is not the case with formal languages.
If you see what "database normalization" really is, you'd realize that the thing is completely mathematical and logical; OO has nothing to do there, and no, saying that you have objects there doesn't make it OO, because saying so, again, is saying nothing at all.
Next you put the worst example you could've imagined: declarative programming. If you have objects, elements, particles in there, that solely has nothing to do with OO; again, you are saying nothing just by saying that everything has objects, or elements, or particles.

You seem to say whatever comes to your mind and makes sense at that moment; you don't have the basis to claim that you understand the essence of things because, obviously, saying that OO is in any way "essential" is being incredibly narrow-minded, besides ignorante, of course.

[Luke_Wolf]

Obviously OOP is a language-independent thing.
Now, you insist in putting object-orientation on an undeserved privileged level. First you say that OO is not specific to programming, but "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used".

So you just now are getting to arguing this point? I've been stating this the entire time we've been arguing.

You obviously have never studied mathematical logic, which gives the foundations of formal languagues. You haven't seen how propositional calculus or first-order calculus is developed here, and you obviously ignore connections between syntax and semantics, as seen in the completness theorems of both languages. Because both calculi are essential to language, and therefore to linguistics, and because (believe me) there is no OO in mathematical logic, either explicitly or implicitly, your argument is quite, if not plain, wrong.

and you're obviously full of shit, as I have shown that there are implicit objects all the way down to the fundamental levels. You have brought no actual arguments while pretending that you have, while I have always backed my arguments by logic and example, and you have not tried to poke holes or otherwise in my logic simply you keep making claims about math while throwing out names and then titles without even bothering to try to do a proper citation, which means you're failing even trying to do a proper ethos based appeal.

What's really clear from this is that you've got a vendetta against OOP while not having an understanding of what it is or how it works merely because a bunch of people from math said so and some idiot from Adobe agreed with them. Adobe being a company with notoriously awful software that continues to be notoriously awful, and if getting that math foundation had improved them don't you think their software would be not buggy shit?

Are you denying that meters and seconds and the like are nouns and as nouns models?

Now, there is a huge difference between natural and formal languages; if english were really OO (which it isn't), that wouldn't suffice to back your claim that "it's general to linguistics as a whole and is how language is actually used", which, as previously seen, is not the case with formal languages.

Except I'm the one who has been showing things you've just been throwing out baseless conjecture.

If you see what "database normalization" really is, you'd realize that the thing is completely mathematical and logical; OO has nothing to do there, and no, saying that you have objects there doesn't make it OO, because saying so, again, is saying nothing at all.

No it is you who doesn't understand database normalization, or object orientation which if you did you would very clearly see that it's the design process of separating things out in such a way that the result is properly designed objects.

Next you put the worst example you could've imagined: declarative programming. If you have objects, elements, particles in there, that solely has nothing to do with OO; again, you are saying nothing just by saying that everything has objects, or elements, or particles.

How many times do I need to explain to you that setting up a foundation is important? You must build upon rock not sand. Also the entire idea that you're saying that declarative programming is not Object-Oriented is laughable at the outset. The entire basis of Markup languages are that you're dealing with a hierarchical set of objects and properties. Are you seriously going to argue that this is not the case? Let's just take a very basic example:

<html>
    <head>
    </head>
    <body>
         Some Text <a href="http://www.example.com">here</a>
    </body>
</html>

which breaks down into we've got a HTML document object with an empty head object, with a body object with a text property of "Some Text here" and "here" is also a reference to an anchor object with a hypertext reference property of www.example.com

You seem to say whatever comes to your mind and makes sense at that moment; you don't have the basis to claim that you understand the essence of things because, obviously, saying that OO is in any way "essential" is being incredibly narrow-minded, besides ignorante, of course.

Whatever you say man who has a vendetta against OO and is showing the very properties that he's claiming I have, while throwing around pure conjecture and failed attempts at ethos arguments other than your initial two, with no attempts at even beginning a logic based argument.

[Sergio]

So you just now are getting to arguing this point? I've been stating this the entire time we've been arguing.

I said: "Now, you insist...", which obviously means I've been aware of what you have been trying to say. Why do you say that "So you just now..."? Are you idiot? If I say that you insist, then it is clear that I've argued the point in the past.

and you're obviously full of shit, as I have shown that there are implicit objects all the way down to the fundamental levels. You have brought no actual arguments while pretending that you have, while I have always backed my arguments by logic and example, and you have not tried to poke holes or otherwise in my logic simply you keep making claims about math while throwing out names and then titles without even bothering to try to do a proper citation, which means you're failing even trying to do a proper ethos based appeal.

You've shown nothing! Please, understand: SAYING THAT OBJECTS ARE EVERYWHERE IS SAYING NOTHING!!!!! Please, get this once and for all! You are basically just saying that everything is about something; you are not laying foundations for anything, or have explained how things work out of those 'particles'. I have brought countless arguments from mathematics, like the previous ones from mathematical logic that set the basis for formal languages, and OO has nothing to do with it. But, because you obviously have no idea what mathematical logic is, you just ignore what I say.
Your 'logic' is just saying "everything is an object". So what? Do you think that you know and understand the foundations of things because everything deals with 'something' (a particle)? It's like saying that the essence of the universe is the elementary particle, supposing there is such a thing. You don't even treat the nature of that thing: all you say is that there are things... that's it!
Now, you think that because I give you examples of great men that would've laughed at your face for your claims means that I disagree with you because of them? I'm tired of giving you math examples about foundations of things, like language, clearly refuting your BS, but you simply choose to ignore that because you know nothing.

What's really clear from this is that you've got a vendetta against OOP while not having an understanding of what it is or how it works merely because a bunch of people from math said so and some idiot from Adobe agreed with them. Adobe being a company with notoriously awful software that continues to be notoriously awful, and if getting that math foundation had improved them don't you think their software would be not buggy shit?

Oh my god... you really think I give a shit about a contingent TECHNIQUE like OO?
Again, I don't say what I say just because they argue like that; I've actually taken time to study lots of things, including a technique like OO and mathematics. I come to the conclusion that what you say is bullshit, and I've backed it up with arguments, like the mathematical logic one that you keep ignoring, and additionally I've shown you that people like Knuth would just laugh in your face for such an idiotic and superficial way of seeing, not only programming, but nature in general.
You saying that Adobe is shit just shows that you can't be taken seriously... WTF does Adobe being shit have to do with this? it does not sum nothing to the discussion.

Are you denying that meters and seconds and the like are nouns and as nouns models?

Sigh...
Communication is essentially about syntax and semantics. You have, on one hand, symbols; they mean nothing at all. Interpreting them as something (meters, seconds) is adding semantics to it. Are these things nouns? First you say: "They're exactly the same thing because object is just a fancy word for "noun"". So, you are again saying that everything is an object. First of all, this isn't true; he have relations, which are essential in algebra (do you know what it means for vector spaces to be isomorphic? nothing to do with 'objects'). Second, again, saying that everything is an object (which it isn't true) is being naive; you are just saying that 'everthing' is 'something' (object, particle, whatever).

Except I'm the one who has been showing things you've just been throwing out baseless conjecture.

You seem pretty confident that you have actually proved something; I've given you explict examples where OO is not essential, I've talked to you about relations and structure. For example, do you think OO is enough to express relations in algebra? Where is OO in algebra? Please answer this and stop saying that I don't provide arguments. To algebra what is essential is RELATIONS and STRUCTURES, not (a naive) 'object'. That algebra deals with something? yes. Can you call this an object? sure, nobody is stopping you. Are you giving any insight by saying that algebra deals with something and calling that something an 'object'? No; you are just being an idiot because you don't understand algebra, or mathematics in general.

No it is you who doesn't understand database normalization, or object orientation which if you did you would very clearly see that it's the design process of separating things out in such a way that the result is properly designed objects.

Just take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Databas...n:_definitions
Don't fucking start with "it's wikipedia, therefor it is invalid". Just read the fucking part and see that in the logical process there is nothing essential to OO. Even the whole page never even mentions the word 'object' or OO.

How many times do I need to explain to you that setting up a foundation is important?

My god... your ignorance keeps amussing me. Do you actually know what mathematicians do? What mathematics is all about? It is about understanding the foundations! Now, you have set no foundation whatsoever, and I'm not going to repeat once more why what you say is equivalent to saying nothing at all.

You must build upon rock not sand. Also the entire idea that you're saying that declarative programming is not Object-Oriented is laughable at the outset. The entire basis of Markup languages are that you're dealing with a hierarchical set of objects and properties. Are you seriously going to argue that this is not the case? Let's just take a very basic example:

<html>
    <head>
    </head>
    <body>
         Some Text <a href="http://www.example.com">here</a>
    </body>
</html>

which breaks down into we've got a HTML document object with an empty head object, with a body object with a text property of "Some Text here" and "here" is also an anchor object with a hypertext reference property of www.example.com

WTF? Where is inheritance? Where is polymorphism? HTML can't even express computation! What about classes? Do you think that because 'head' is 'something' that automatically makes it object-oriented? now it seems that you even don't know what object-orientation is; you are trying to generalize it to something that is no longer OO. Just because you call 'head' an object doesn't imply that HTML is OO... WTF are you just saying?

Whatever you say man who has a vendetta against OO and is showing the very properties that he's claiming I have, while throwing around pure conjecture and failed attempts at ethos arguments other than your initial two, with no attempts at even beginning a logic based argument.

I just hope you actually answer my arguments against your stupidity and stop saying that I don't have anything to say about this.

Another thing, and I think I should have started with this: How old are you?

[Luke_Wolf]

I said: "Now, you insist...", which obviously means I've been aware of what you have been trying to say. Why do you say that "So you just now..."? Are you idiot? If I say that you insist, then it is clear that I've argued the point in the past.

Okay... This this is stupid. Are you really going to try to argue that? Really now?

"You insist..." would indicate what you're trying to push

"Now, you insist" indicates a change in arguement, as in "You said this, and... Now, you insist..." it is in no way indicative of having argued it in the past. Quite the contrary. It indicates there's been a sudden change.

You've shown nothing! Please, understand: SAYING THAT OBJECTS ARE EVERYWHERE IS SAYING NOTHING!!!!! Please, get this once and for all! You are basically just saying that everything is about something; you are not laying foundations for anything, or have explained how things work out of those 'particles'.

You want an explanation on how things build up from particles find yourself a chemist and a physicist, as building up from there is not my area. However I can explain how things go up from Object in an applied math sense.

Let's start off with a basic equation

2+2

It's fine to add those together right? The result is 4

how about if I make both seconds

2s + 2s

that gives us 4 seconds which works out just fine, now what if one is meters and the other is seconds?

2m + 2s

well, we can't add them together anymore because meters and seconds aren't really comparable objects, and so even though they inherit the operator of addition which operates just as well with meters as apples or oranges they can't be combined. However to show the other way lets shift gears to something you can't argue mathematics on, which is to say... Apples

2 Granny Smiths + 2 Golden Delicious

The result is 4 apples. So I have just shown you strong typing (which requires there to be types) and polymorphism. You can of course argue that they derive in part either from number or an interface of number but that's all implementation details.

I have brought countless arguments from mathematics,

Bullshit, you have pointed to nothing, you've pointed at a few mathematicians. You've copied a quote from stepanov, and an idiot from Adobe. You've bandied about a few titles, and thrown around opinions about math, language, programming and engineering (the last of which was proven baseless, and the other three you've not supported your side on) but you've never actually backed them up with anything concrete because you haven't even tried to refute my points in actuality which at this point I would say is because you don't have anything concrete at all to base yourself on.

like the previous ones from mathematical logic that set the basis for formal languages, and OO has nothing to do with it. But, because you obviously have no idea what mathematical logic is, you just ignore what I say.

You have used no mathematical logic or any examples, you have used two quotes, a lot of names, and a bunch of conjecture which you refuse to back up

Your 'logic' is just saying "everything is an object". So what? Do you think that you know and understand the foundations of things because everything deals with 'something' (a particle)? It's like saying that the essence of the universe is the elementary particle, supposing there is such a thing. You don't even treat the nature of that thing: all you say is that there are things... that's it!

Technically speaking the foundation (which is what I'm arguing) of the universe is whatever that base particle is. As everything else builds on top of it.

Now, you think that because I give you examples of great men that would've laughed at your face for your claims means that I disagree with you because of them? I'm tired of giving you math examples about foundations of things, like language, clearly refuting your BS, but you simply choose to ignore that because you know nothing.

What examples? I see two quotes, a lot of conjecture, and a lot of names that have been thrown out at me. I don't know about you but if in school or college I had turned in a paper using that kind of crappy citation work the teacher would have just torn up the paper and told me to rewrite it, if I was lucky.

Oh my god... you really think I give a shit about a contingent TECHNIQUE like OO?
Again, I don't say what I say just because they argue like that; I've actually taken time to study lots of things, including a technique like OO and mathematics. I come to the conclusion that what you say is bullshit, and I've backed it up with arguments, like the mathematical logic one that you keep ignoring, and additionally I've shown you that people like Knuth would just laugh in your face for such an idiotic and superficial way of seeing, not only programming, but nature in general.

I don't buy that you've studied OOP for more than a cursory glance for one second. You have such a poor understanding of it that it's not even funny. On the other hand you've shown outright prejudice against the technique and have refused to even try to understand, and no again you've not backed it up with arguments you've backed your side up with 2 quotes, conjectures and names not even real citations.

You saying that Adobe is shit just shows that you can't be taken seriously... WTF does Adobe being shit have to do with this? it does not sum nothing to the discussion.

Adobe being shit has to do with curb stomping one of your quotes. It's called cutting the legs out from under a supposed authority on the subject, because logic would dictate that if an improved process resulted in an improved product then we should be seeing adobe's products improving in quality. Alas they have not. This means that the adobe guy can't be used as an example and cuts you down to one quote by one guy.

Sigh...
Communication is essentially about syntax and semantics. You have, on one hand, symbols; they mean nothing at all. Interpreting them as something (meters, seconds) is adding semantics to it.

Well finally we're beginning to get somewhere on the concept that there is information and models of said information.

Are these things nouns?

(emphasis mine)
need I say more?

First you say: "They're exactly the same thing because object is just a fancy word for "noun"". So, you are again saying that everything is an object. First of all, this isn't true; he have relations, which are essential in algebra (do you know what it means for vector spaces to be isomorphic? nothing to do with 'objects'). Second, again, saying that everything is an object (which it isn't true) is being naive; you are just saying that 'everthing' is 'something' (object, particle, whatever).

Earlier you agreed with me that everything was an object, now you're going to contradict yourself. Good show. I tire of repeating myself on the matter, declaring everything an object is an act of laying the foundation for the rest of the universe on which you build everything else. You want my arguments on the matter see my other posts

You seem pretty confident that you have actually proved something; I've given you explict examples where OO is not essential,

What Explicit examples? Relations and structures clearly aren't really it as you haven't even tried to refute what I've put forth.

I've talked to you about relations and structure. For example, do you think OO is enough to express relations in algebra? Where is OO in algebra? Please answer this and stop saying that I don't provide arguments. To algebra what is essential is RELATIONS and STRUCTURES, not (a naive) 'object'. That algebra deals with something? yes. Can you call this an object? sure, nobody is stopping you. Are you giving any insight by saying that algebra deals with something and calling that something an 'object'? No; you are just being an idiot because you don't understand algebra, or mathematics in general.

Hey look in all of this mess we have our first actual argument... that is that Algebra is relations and structures. However it's incomplete because the foundation of the statement is in question.

Just take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Databas...n:_definitions
Don't fucking start with "it's wikipedia, therefor it is invalid". Just read the fucking part and see that in the logical process there is nothing essential to OO. Even the whole page never even mentions the word 'object' or OO.

Hey look you used ethos correctly again for the third time. Do more like this. As far as the section though yeah it doesn't mention object but this is something where you have to read in between the lines. I don't blame you for not catching this but the more "normal" the form, the better it maps into objects. You figure this out if you've ever normalized or been walked through the normalization process even if it's not obvious right off the logic itself. I don't have a good quick example for going from a big flat table through to the the normal forms... So you're just going to have to walk through it yourself. there are plenty on youtube such as this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEeXy88Zrak (I didn't check the actual video itself since the flash plugin decided to break almost as if to prove my point on adobe but the thumbnail looked like it should be okay for walking through the forms)

My god... your ignorance keeps amussing me. Do you actually know what mathematicians do? What mathematics is all about? It is about understanding the foundations! Now, you have set no foundation whatsoever, and I'm not going to repeat once more why what you say is equivalent to saying nothing at all.

And your ignorance and thick headedness is tiring as I have used both logic and example and you have refused to even try to come up to my level and debate the points. Whereas I keep on refuting yours and you keep on parroting the same statements over and over again. If this was in any other context you'd be considered a troll, but the sad thing is you aren't.

WTF? Where is inheritance? Where is polymorphism? HTML can't even express computation! What about classes? Do you think that because 'head' is 'something' that automatically makes it object-oriented? now it seems that you even don't know what object-orientation is; you are trying to generalize it to something that is no longer OO. Just because you call 'head' an object doesn't imply that HTML is OO... WTF are you just saying?

Again you show an utter lack of understand of just what OO is and a lack of knowledge of the related technologies. Once more I say Object Orientation is modeling pure and simple. Polymorphism and inheritance are nice design patterns but not really requisite for OO design although they can show that things are objects as seen above. That a model is static doesn't change the fact that it is a model, that's not to say that dynamic models aren't nice but it's not really required for modeling. Also if you really want polymorphism and inheritance we have this thing called Cascading Style Sheets, and for computation this thing called Javascript on the client side, and PHP or any language really acting as a CGI "script" on the server side. I'm an application programmer not a webdev and even I know that.

I just hope you actually answer my arguments against your stupidity and stop saying that I don't have anything to say about this.

Another thing, and I think I should have started with this: How old are you?

*yawn* Does this mean you actually are trolling? I'm not going to lower myself into your gambit of who is older in your attempt to try to make an argument based on age on the naive notion that age has any relation at all to knowledge. There are really smart kids and dumbass adults, and really smart adults and dumbass kids and age has got precisely nothing to do with it. Usually this cliche argument is used by a pretentious assholes who is stuck in their ways and has nowhere else to turn and so rolls the dice thinking that they can use it to automatically grant them a win. I'm sorry but things don't actually work out that way.

[Luke_Wolf]

Do you actually know what mathematicians do?

Actually... what is your answer to this? Beyond writing grant applications, fighting in the great institutional politics wars, and teaching math, I'm not entirely sure since you're theory guys. You're not particularly useful in engineering, you don't really count as one of the sciences so that isn't the answer. Clearly you guys aren't doing any programming given your lack of understanding of the development cycle.... so I'm at a loss here unless it's bashing things you don't understand (which there is actually a rather strong case for). Maybe I'm actually on to something here and mathematicians bash other fields particularly the applied fields because they're trying to legitimize their existence....

[archibald]

Actually... what is your answer to this? Beyond writing grant applications, fighting in the great institutional politics wars, and teaching math, I'm not entirely sure since you're theory guys. You're not particularly useful in engineering, you don't really count as one of the sciences so that isn't the answer. Clearly you guys aren't doing any programming given your lack of understanding of the development cycle.... so I'm at a loss here unless it's bashing things you don't understand (which there is actually a rather strong case for). Maybe I'm actually on to something here and mathematicians bash other fields particularly the applied fields because they're trying to legitimize their existence....

You assert that one of mathematicians' activities is fighting in institutional politics. You then assert that they aren't particularly useful in engineering and they mathematics doesn't count as one of the sciences. You further assert that no mathematicians do any programming based on your opinions of one persons understanding of the development cycle.

Then you top it off by suggesting they bash things they don't understand...