Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 224

Thread: Shuttleworth On Mir: "A Fantastic Piece of Engineering"

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Uhuh so since you have no real arguments against my analogies, or against my examples, or even against my reasoning you write your entire response ad-hominem not even trying to make a logic based appeal since I showed that you have no idea how the development process actually works.
    Development process of what? What does that have to do with the foundations of programming?
    The development of mathematics itself is based upon empirical facts, so what? Your reasoning, examples, analogies sum up to nothing; you have failed to prove anything, yet I have given examples of (brilliant) people that think that mathematics is the foundations for programming (Dijkstra, Knuth, Stepanov, all of them computer scientists and mathematicians). Then there is Stepanov's work, Dijkstra's Discipline of Programming, and Knuth's The Art Of Computer Programming. These people devoted their lives to really grasp the foundations of things, you think they are just delusional academics and don't realize just what kind of idiot you are. These arguments doesn't even make you doubt about things. I'm not starting with Gödel, Church, etc, because it would be a waste of time to trying to make you understand that things are not as simple as narrow as "OOP is humanitie's god" bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    That's right mathematics is a tool used by every engineering field when needed but the core is the shoulders of other people and the rubble those people stand upon.
    Mathematics was born with civilization itself, with human being itself; mathematics have arisen naturally, at the point that mathematics and philosophy were once burden in one. Saying that mathematics "is a tool" just makes me think you ignore the history you so proudly tell me to review. The core of engineering and almost any intellectual activity IS mathematics, and saying otherwise is stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Hey guess what their mathematics is modeling real things and how they work so you just lost.
    What? You think OOP landed men on the moon? No; mathematics did (well, jointly with other sciences such as physics and chemistry). If programming is required in order for man to land on the moon, and mathematics is THE core of this programming, how the fsck did I lose? Where is your ubiquitious OOP in all this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    I said so and I showed it to be the case, and you have not put forward even one logic based appeal on the matter, simple ad-hominem attacks and a few appeals to authority. I don't mind ad-hominem but at least try to mix in some, even if it's just one, logic based arguments.
    I'm tired of setting you examples from trully knowledgeable men; not only that, but also legends like Gödel, Church and Turing himself, and you just think they are stupid and you are right. Try reading Stepanov's work, or TAOCP, or Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes, or Dijsktra's A Discipline Of Programming, or The Science Of Programming. You need more evidence that OOP isn't even considered a foundational aspect of programming?

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Rural Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    980

    Default

    I think you both need to tone down the egos a little bit. Of course math is a fundamental part of programming, but of course so is engineering. Although, I must admit, any argument based on saying you must "listen to legends" makes me feel a bit uneasy.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Development process of what? What does that have to do with the foundations of programming?
    That should be obvious by now. Any field of engineering and the products that are created thereof. This has to do with the foundation of programming because you think that with math engineers are capable of perfecting a new field in a day. That is patently false. Galloping Gertie, the London Bridges, and rocketry show that things do need time to develop, you rarely get it right in one because the models need to be figured out and tweaked to fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    The development of mathematics itself is based upon empirical facts, so what? Your reasoning, examples, analogies sum up to nothing; you have failed to prove anything, yet I have given examples of (brilliant) people that think that mathematics is the foundations for programming (Dijkstra, Knuth, Stepanov, all of them computer scientists and mathematicians). Then there is Stepanov's work, Dijkstra's Discipline of Programming, and Knuth's The Art Of Computer Programming. These people devoted their lives to really grasp the foundations of things, you think they are just delusional academics and don't realize just what kind of idiot you are. These arguments doesn't even make you doubt about things. I'm not starting with Gödel, Church, etc, because it would be a waste of time to trying to make you understand that things are not as simple as narrow as "OOP is humanitie's god" bullshit.
    You fail to get that while mathematics is based upon empirical facts it is itself not the empirical facts. There is a difference between Information and the models we use to try to convey said information. Also I'm not the one pushing something as a religion you're the one doing that to the point where you speak of "divine" proofs. However what I have been saying is that objects are the basis of linguistics and showed as such, and my assertion stands as you have shown nothing to the contrary. Even the model and thus language that is math is based on objects, I say again. Now let's break down what does 2+2=4 really mean. It means that we've got two Objects being put with two Objects resulting in there being 4 arbitrary Objects, and ultimately these naked numbers amount to the equivalent of generics or templates, they don't mean anything at all until we define it as meters, seconds, grams, or even potatoes. Force = Mass * Acceleration is dealing with the properties of the "This" Object, and "This" can be a car a ball or any other object.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics was born with civilization itself, with human being itself; mathematics have arisen naturally, at the point that mathematics and philosophy were once burden in one. Saying that mathematics "is a tool" just makes me think you ignore the history you so proudly tell me to review. The core of engineering and almost any intellectual activity IS mathematics, and saying otherwise is stupid.
    Whose the one pushing things as divine again? Oh right.. here you're at it again. Math arose from the need to express the information of cardinality and calculations based upon it, and developed on many completely different pathways until we reached the unification we have today. Historically there's been a ton of different models, most of them are unwieldy and limited in scope for expression which is why the entire concept of a null was so very important.

    Engineering is a trade, just as medicine is a trade. Let me put this to you another way, the most important tool for a computer tech is his screwdriver, however that doesn't make repairing or building computers all about screws or screwdrivers. The core of computer techs work is computers and computer parts, and how to troubleshoot problems thereof, and just because he has a screwdriver doesn't me he doesn't need other tools like his cans of air. Math is like that screwdriver an engineer couldn't get on very well at all without the tool of math but the core of engineering is the work that other people have done before him and the mistakes they have made that he and people before him have learned from that have resulted in the models he works with and uses in his job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What? You think OOP landed men on the moon? No; mathematics did (well, jointly with other sciences such as physics and chemistry). If programming is required in order for man to land on the moon, and mathematics is THE core of this programming, how the fsck did I lose? Where is your ubiquitious OOP in all this?
    Well it did require computers to get people to the moon, you seriously think they did that by hand? of course not. However without using Object Orientation in math they would have gone exactly nowhere. Without them doing object types and someone along the line having done the work to set up the models for those objects there would have been no way for them to even begin to work on the problem. Without someone having figured out things like the property of gravity of the object known as Earth having the value of ~9.8meters/sec^2 (meters and seconds again being objects with math assigning a cardinality property to them) the calculations required to break orbit wouldn't have been possible because of lacking requisite models.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    I'm tired of setting you examples from trully knowledgeable men; not only that, but also legends like Gödel, Church and Turing himself, and you just think they are stupid and you are right. Try reading Stepanov's work, or TAOCP, or Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes, or Dijsktra's A Discipline Of Programming, or The Science Of Programming. You need more evidence that OOP isn't even considered a foundational aspect of programming?
    You haven't set examples beyond Stepanov and an idiot from adobe you've thrown names out as an attempt to appeal to authority and now finally some titles but those aren't examples. The besides of which is logos (logic) is the only basis for a real discussion on the matter, and if you can't even argue or defend the points of those individuals you appeal to authority for, it shows either a lack of understanding or a lack in confidence in feeling you understand the arguments well enough to use and defend them. Going with expertism never has and never will fly in my books: because Stepanov said so is not acceptable. However here are Stepanov's point's and here's my explaination and defense of said points is very acceptable. Otherwise you can get into long raging battles over: "who is more intelligent Torvalds or Tannerbaum?" which yeah no...
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 03-10-2013 at 04:39 PM.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
    I think you both need to tone down the egos a little bit. Of course math is a fundamental part of programming, but of course so is engineering. Although, I must admit, any argument based on saying you must "listen to legends" makes me feel a bit uneasy.
    well the problem with saying that is that we're debating the point of just what exactly is math, programming, and engineering.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JanC View Post
    Actually, the first high level language (much higher level than C—but then again, before C there was already COBOL, LISP, FORTRAN, etc.) was designed in the first half of the 1940s (so even before you situated assembly!): Plankalkül.

    And the first theoretical science (math) about programming dates back to the 18th century IIRC.

    But I agree that even 2-3 centuries still makes software engineering a very young field.

    BTW: OOP has been around and usable for at least as long as C: both C & Smalltalk started life around 1969 and were officially released in 1972. No need to wait another decade until 1983 for that. And of course there were the programming language Simula (1967) and the program Sketchpad (1963, used OOP techniques) before that.
    You forgot Pascal....

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    That should be obvious by now. Any field of engineering and the products that are created thereof. This has to do with the foundation of programming because you think that with math engineers are capable of perfecting a new field in a day. That is patently false. Galloping Gertie, the London Bridges, and rocketry show that things do need time to develop, you rarely get it right in one because the models need to be figured out and tweaked to fit.
    Mathematics is at the core of every engineering field, except so called "software engineering".
    What's your point with "they don't get it right at the first time"? It doesn't matter; that doesn't modify the nature of things, and that doesn't imply that mathematics is not at the core of engineering, so stop repeating the same shit. Enter ANY engineering discipline and you will find it is built upon mathematical principles, hence, mathematics is their foundation. Take mathematics out and you have no engineering. PERIOD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    You fail to get that while mathematics is based upon empirical facts it is itself not the empirical facts. There is a difference between Information and the models we use to try to convey said information. Also I'm not the one pushing something as a religion you're the one doing that to the point where you speak of "divine" proofs. However what I have been saying is that objects are the basis of linguistics and showed as such, and my assertion stands as you have shown nothing to the contrary. Even the model and thus language that is math is based on objects, I say again. Now let's break down what does 2+2=4 really mean. It means that we've got two Objects being put with two Objects resulting in there being 4 arbitrary Objects, and ultimately these naked numbers amount to the equivalent of generics or templates, they don't mean anything at all until we define it as meters, seconds, grams, or even potatoes. Force = Mass * Acceleration is dealing with the properties of the "This" Object, and "This" can be a car a ball or any other object.
    What's your point with mathematics not being the empirical facts? what I try to make you see is that mathematics arise up naturally, and is connected to other fields also naturally; mathematics being at the core of engineering is a NATURAL thing.
    I say that a proof is 'divine' because it requires creativity and is aesthetic; this is quite contrary to your (ignorant) view of mathematics as merely doing calculations.
    You say that objects is the basis of everything, but you don't realize the following: YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING AT ALL! What is an object? How do objects interact? What relations do they have? What structure do they have? You are just saying that, in whatever field you study, you will always have 'something' to study; that is, the subject matter of that thing. You are calling this primitive things objects and that's it! YOU ARE DOING NOTHING! I could just interchange 'object' with 'essence' or with 'particle' or with 'existence'.
    Now, you say that "the language of math" is based objects. Again, in mathematics you have sets, groups, rings, vector spaces, functions, categories, homomorphisms, points, topologies... and you are calling all these simply objects. So what? Just what are you accomplishing doing so? These are the 'primitive elements' that make up a specific division of mathematics (e.g algebra). Mathematics is not "based on" these primitive things which, by the way, their existence is largely axiomatic and arbitrary. For example, what makes up algebra is the way these things (objects, in your parlance) relate, what STRUCTURE do they have, etc. So, in any case when you say that "math is based on objects" is not only saying nothing at all, as explained earlier, but also showing that you have never studied mathematics seriously (no, calculus is not mathematics).
    Now, you put the example of 2+2=4. Do you know what the equal sign means? It is a RELATION. What gives any value to your example is this relation. Equality is a minimal equivalence relation. Is a relation an object? NO. Your example just reveals against you because you are obviously an ignorant. Then, if you have 4 objects, and split them as you suggest, what gives any meaning to your example is the equivalence relation of equality. Yes, you have objects, so what? Again, what you say AMOUNTS TO NOTHING AT ALL; I hope you finally get this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Whose the one pushing things as divine again? Oh right.. here you're at it again. Math arose from the need to express the information of cardinality and calculations based upon it, and developed on many completely different pathways until we reached the unification we have today. Historically there's been a ton of different models, most of them are unwieldy and limited in scope for expression which is why the entire concept of a null was so very important.
    What unification? Today, more than ever, mathematics is split in an amussing different fields. What the fsck are you talking about with unification? Where is the unification of algebra, analysis, geometry, topology, mathematical logic, set theory, etc, etc, etc? you think that other people are stupid that you can just combine words that sound good and they will just believe the stupid things you say?
    Mathematics is not a model; mathematics is inherent and essential to human being, as history itself proofs. You use mathematics to model things, as in engineering, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is itself a model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Engineering is a trade, just as medicine is a trade. Let me put this to you another way, the most important tool for a computer tech is his screwdriver, however that doesn't make repairing or building computers all about screws or screwdrivers. The core of computer techs work is computers and computer parts, and how to troubleshoot problems thereof, and just because he has a screwdriver doesn't me he doesn't need other tools like his cans of air. Math is like that screwdriver an engineer couldn't get on very well at all without the tool of math but the core of engineering is the work that other people have done before him and the mistakes they have made that he and people before him have learned from that have resulted in the models he works with and uses in his job.
    Mathematics is the core of engineering. What does "but the core of engineering is the work that other people have done before him and the mistakes they have made that he and people before him have learned from that have resulted in the models he works with and uses in his job" even mean? If men got it wrong at first and learned through mistakes doesn't imply that mathematics is not the core of the discipline... or that these mistakes and history is the core itself; that's just nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    Well it did require computers to get people to the moon, you seriously think they did that by hand? of course not. However without using Object Orientation in math they would have gone exactly nowhere. Without them doing object types and someone along the line having done the work to set up the models for those objects there would have been no way for them to even begin to work on the problem. Without someone having figured out things like the property of gravity of the object known as Earth having the value of ~9.8meters/sec^2 (meters and seconds again being objects with math assigning a cardinality property to them) the calculations required to break orbit wouldn't have been possible because of lacking requisite models.
    "However without using Object Orientation in math they would have gone exactly nowhere"
    God... Object-Orientation is at the core of nothing! much less of mathematics! I trully find this very offensive.
    Do you think that something like inheritance of polymorphism can express the structure and relations of mathematics? Man, you are so lost...

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    You haven't set examples beyond Stepanov and an idiot from adobe you've thrown names out as an attempt to appeal to authority and now finally some titles but those aren't examples. The besides of which is logos (logic) is the only basis for a real discussion on the matter, and if you can't even argue or defend the points of those individuals you appeal to authority for, it shows either a lack of understanding or a lack in confidence in feeling you understand the arguments well enough to use and defend them. Going with expertism never has and never will fly in my books: because Stepanov said so is not acceptable. However here are Stepanov's point's and here's my explaination and defense of said points is very acceptable. Otherwise you can get into long raging battles over: "who is more intelligent Torvalds or Tannerbaum?" which yeah no...
    I've put examples of people devoted to understanding things; you have not backed your BS with nothing.
    Gödel, Church, Turing, Kleene, Knuth, Dijsktra, Stepanov... I'll take their word anytime before your nonsense. But I don't disagree with you because they say so; the point is that these names and their wholes lifes easily and clearly invalidate what you are saying.
    Know what the worst part is? They don't even make you curious and doubt about things, and this is very sad. You think that because you don't appeal to authority and "have confidence" makes you right? Do you think I even care about "winning" this discussion with you? I truly want to understand the nature of programming, but what I'm sure about is that it isn't what you say (again, what you say amounts to nothing at all).
    Last edited by Sergio; 03-10-2013 at 07:43 PM.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    363

    Default

    Engineers are problem solvers; you have a problem, an engineer will probably be able to find a solution. It could be a math problem, an "I need a bridge across that gap" problem, or a "I need a building which can contain this many people, and fit in this area" problem. Engineers handle them all.

    Programming, in certain instances, can involve engineering. For instance, you have this program, and you want it to do this cool flippy thing; you have to engineer a solution. It can also be somewhat a science--you put these inputs in, and expect this result, though that's not always the result you get (hypothesis, experiment, etc. The scientific method). They are in no way exclusive of each other, and I would expect they are often used in conjunction with each other.

    Math is something else entirely. It is often used in problem solving (engineering) and in science (for making educated guesses at what the results may be), but it is required for neither. I can easily look at a square peg and a round hole, and know that I will need to cut the peg in order for it to fit. You can use math in order to make your results more exact, but it isn't necessary.

    At it's lowest level, math is not object oriented--The number one can not represent two or three depending on it's context, and may not be used to create another "number object" with attributes and properties attached. It will always represent 1 (or a multiple thereof). However, when you go up to higher levels (algebra, geometry, etc.) simple objects (in the form of variables) are introduced. One still equals one, but the value of X or Y may change depending on the context. I don't believe, however, that this alone is enough to consider math an object-oriented language.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics is at the core of every engineering field, except so called "software engineering".
    What's your point with "they don't get it right at the first time"? It doesn't matter; that doesn't modify the nature of things, and that doesn't imply that mathematics is not at the core of engineering, so stop repeating the same shit. Enter ANY engineering discipline and you will find it is built upon mathematical principles, hence, mathematics is their foundation. Take mathematics out and you have no engineering. PERIOD.
    No it is built upon experience and learning with math being one of the most relied upon tools for use with that experience upon which everything else builds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What's your point with mathematics not being the empirical facts? what I try to make you see is that mathematics arise up naturally, and is connected to other fields also naturally; mathematics being at the core of engineering is a NATURAL thing.
    I'll agree that mathematics naturally arose, but from the need for a way to try to express cardinality and calculate things due to the limitations of dealing with the information itself directly. I will also agree that it is natural to use such a developed tool as it fits within the purposes, however I don't agree that from math came engineering. Engineering comes from the development of weapons, to solve the issue of how do I kill people, and how do I knock down this wall preventing me from killing people and such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    I say that a proof is 'divine' because it requires creativity and is aesthetic; this is quite contrary to your (ignorant) view of mathematics as merely doing calculations.
    Yes creativity is required to advance models (essentially being clever and figuring things out), however I don't see where divinity comes into that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    You say that objects is the basis of everything, but you don't realize the following: YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING AT ALL!
    When I say objects are the basis of everything I am establishing the basis of the model, the foundation upon which all else is built. You and other mathematicians might consider foundations unimportant but without a foundation you are building on sand and so you will soon have nothing at all because it's just going to collapse underneath you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What is an object?
    A person, place, thing or idea.. in short a noun.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    How do objects interact?
    with action words or symbols, commonly known as verbs,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What relations do they have?
    This is handled through the states of being: The earth is a planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What structure do they have?
    This is handled through the state of having: the earth has a gravitational force of approximately 9.8 meters per second squared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    You are just saying that, in whatever field you study, you will always have 'something' to study; that is, the subject matter of that thing. You are calling this primitive things objects and that's it! YOU ARE DOING NOTHING! I could just interchange 'object' with 'essence' or with 'particle' or with 'existence'.
    Well close but not quite, and your statement would have been okay except for you used the word particle. Type Object is a completely abstract type, and sets up generics or templates, and yes using type Object means exactly nothing in the same way that 2+2=4 means absolutely nothing because it's lacking units, other than for being a generic template. Type Particle is a more specific derivative off of Type Object with all of the properties, relationships, and interactions that are native to particles. But again when we say everything is an Object we are establishing a foundational relationship and understanding of the universe, because now everything is derivative from the same basic type allowing interaction. We know objects have interactions with themselves and other objects, that they have properties and can contain other objects, we know they can be of types and that objects can share the same types and interfaces, etc etc.. we have laid the foundation and so can begin building.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Now, you say that "the language of math" is based objects. Again, in mathematics you have sets, groups, rings, vector spaces, functions, categories, homomorphisms, points, topologies... and you are calling all these simply objects. So what? Just what are you accomplishing doing so? These are the 'primitive elements' that make up a specific division of mathematics (e.g algebra). Mathematics is not "based on" these primitive things which, by the way, their existence is largely axiomatic and arbitrary. For example, what makes up algebra is the way these things (objects, in your parlance) relate, what STRUCTURE do they have, etc. So, in any case when you say that "math is based on objects" is not only saying nothing at all, as explained earlier, but also showing that you have never studied mathematics seriously (no, calculus is not mathematics).
    See the above, you're setting up a foundation for everything else, structure is inherent in this because all object orientation is is modeling, which is why you complaining about structure, and relations and such is strongly leading me to believe you've never actually done OOP or understand the goals or ideas behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Now, you put the example of 2+2=4. Do you know what the equal sign means? It is a RELATION. What gives any value to your example is this relation. Equality is a minimal equivalence relation. Is a relation an object? NO. Your example just reveals against you because you are obviously an ignorant. Then, if you have 4 objects, and split them as you suggest, what gives any meaning to your example is the equivalence relation of equality. Yes, you have objects, so what? Again, what you say AMOUNTS TO NOTHING AT ALL; I hope you finally get this.
    Even for a relation 2+2=4 means absolutely nothing at all to start with, and continues to mean nothing until you define the type of objects involved. Otherwise it's just a generic template which I absolutely agree means nothing, however it is the type not the relation that gives it meaning. This isn't to say that the relation itself isn't useful, it is... and because of that we have these and call them templates or generics in OOP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    What unification? Today, more than ever, mathematics is split in an amussing different fields. What the fsck are you talking about with unification? Where is the unification of algebra, analysis, geometry, topology, mathematical logic, set theory, etc, etc, etc? you think that other people are stupid that you can just combine words that sound good and they will just believe the stupid things you say?
    Everybody is using the Indian system of bases with arabic numerals are they not? Yes we've expanded this model into various fields but it's not like there are people running around using greek or roman numerals any more now are there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics is not a model; mathematics is inherent and essential to human being, as history itself proofs. You use mathematics to model things, as in engineering, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is itself a model.
    If math is not the empirical facts but is instead simply trying to convey them what else is that but a model and as a model: language?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Mathematics is the core of engineering. What does "but the core of engineering is the work that other people have done before him and the mistakes they have made that he and people before him have learned from that have resulted in the models he works with and uses in his job" even mean? If men got it wrong at first and learned through mistakes doesn't imply that mathematics is not the core of the discipline... or that these mistakes and history is the core itself; that's just nonsense.
    It means the experience gained over time that has improved the trade and resulted in the models they use is the basis,

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    "However without using Object Orientation in math they would have gone exactly nowhere"
    God... Object-Orientation is at the core of nothing! much less of mathematics! I trully find this very offensive.
    Do you think that something like inheritance of polymorphism can express the structure and relations of mathematics? Man, you are so lost...
    I'm sure you do, and we have more than inheritance and polymorphism those are just the is a relationships (and we can do both hierarchy and tagging at the same time even using multiple inheritance properly) we have the has a structured relationships covered as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    I've put examples of people devoted to understanding things; you have not backed your BS with nothing.
    Gödel, Church, Turing, Kleene, Knuth, Dijsktra, Stepanov... I'll take their word anytime before your nonsense. But I don't disagree with you because they say so; the point is that these names and their wholes lifes easily and clearly invalidate what you are saying.
    I'm sorry I haven't back my statements with ethos, you know why? Because I have this thing called Logic, and actual examples, and logic trumps everything other than actual examples which I have both so I'm covered. You on the other hand aren't even using ethos properly, because other than Stepanov and Adobe's Idiot McGee (which if this improved Adobe why are all their products still notoriously shitty? For that matter when did this happen?) you haven't even pulled quotes or anything or even tried to use them as an actual basis as opposed to just throwing out names, and now book titles. To make such a citation you either need to quote or paraphrase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sergio View Post
    Know what the worst part is? They don't even make you curious and doubt about things, and this is very sad. You think that because you don't appeal to authority and "have confidence" makes you right? Do you think I even care about "winning" this discussion with you? I truly want to understand the nature of programming, but what I'm sure about is that it isn't what you say (again, what you say amounts to nothing at all).
    I don't appeal to authority because I appeal with logic and it is this backing in logic that assures me of rightness. Pathos is pure bullshit for the sake of bullshit. Ethos you are reliant upon someone else being right, which you should never ever ever trust to be the case. Logos you are reliant upon yourself and your own models being right and you yourself must argue the accountancy for errors when you're wrong. Logos requires actual skill and knowledge of the subject at hand but from a position of being right it is the most correct because you have to defend it based upon the subject at hand.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 03-11-2013 at 01:47 AM.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    At it's lowest level, math is not object oriented--The number one can not represent two or three depending on it's context,
    I'm not sure I understand what the representing two or three depending upon context has to do with object orientation? I'm assuming you're talking about immutability but that really doesn't have anything to do with object orientation per se.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    and may not be used to create another "number object" with attributes and properties attached.
    Well if we're talking about doing copies then yeah I agree however whenever you perform an operation you are returning a new object with the combined attributes, properties, and values attached. although there are rules on the operational level as to how attributes, properties, and values are attached. See 9.8 meters/second^2

    Quote Originally Posted by Nobu View Post
    It will always represent 1 (or a multiple thereof). However, when you go up to higher levels (algebra, geometry, etc.) simple objects (in the form of variables) are introduced. One still equals one, but the value of X or Y may change depending on the context. I don't believe, however, that this alone is enough to consider math an object-oriented language.
    What makes it so is that you're inherently expressing things through the use of models the same as is true of all languages.
    Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 03-11-2013 at 01:52 AM.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17

    Default

    it's quality and vision that others are lacking.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •