The FlakeyMind/Bryce Jacobs FAQ (v0.3)
Thaddeus L Olczyk
-----------------------
Index of Faqs
Q0: Where can I find this FAQ?
Q1: Who is CrappyMind?
Q2: Why does he call himself "ShitForMind"?
Q3: What is Bryce Jacobs?
Q4: Bryce Jacobs has made suggestions about ways to minimize the
traffic
Q5: Is there a solution to "Bryce Jacobs" problem?
Q6:What is his posting history?
Q7: Why does BJ troll?
Q8: Is this faq a troll? Is this faq off-topic to the group? Is this
Q10: Should I try to engage in a technical discussion with BJ?
Q11: What about ignoring him, or killfiling him?
Q13: Is there any chance that anything BJ says is true?
Q14: You mentioned the two sycophants. What do you mean by this?
----------------------
Faqs
Q0: Where can I find this FAQ?
A: At present this faq is not stored in any specific
location on the net. It has till this time been
posted to comp.object at irregular intervals.
I expect to post this faq every week or two weeks
( I am uncertain which at this point ) until BJ
stops posting, or stops being a troll.
Q1: Who is CrappyMind?
A: He is a burned out dbase programmer named Bryce Jacobs ( henceforth
known as BJ ).
Some people have suggested that this is all a cover for the real
nature of
Bryce Jacobs, that he is an AI set loose on comp.object as a Turing
test. Although there
are many strong arguments supporting this, I find there is one flaw
in this argument.
Bryce Jacobs spends some time not posting, some time posting in a
mailing list, some time
posting to both, and some of his time in comp.lang.perl.misc. This
periods seem highly
irregular ( in fact the frequency of spurts of high volume posting
seem to indicate
times he is out of work ). This would seem to not be something I
would expect of an AI.
Q2: Why does he call himself "ShitForMind"?
A: He claims that his antiOO stance is harmful for his career.
For example: in one thread he says:
From: Topmind (top...@technologist.com)
Subject: Re: Struggling with OO
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 2001-05-29 21:45:01 PST
Message #52
>
> Although people do like to know real names around here,
Gymmie?
>
Admitting that OO bothers one is career suicide. Allow us
table-heads some privacy please.
Many employers do web searches of names. (I should change
my name to Bob Smith to blow the stack.)
-T-
This reasoning brings many questions to mind. Many Lisp
programmers,
Smalltalk programmers, and programmers of other technologies that
are not that popular do very well career wise. So why is BJ
worried
about career suicide? The only explanation that comes to mind is
that BJ is perpetrating a fraud by lying to potential employers
about his OO abilities.
Q3: What is Bryce Jacobs?
A: Basically he is a troll who spends most of his time in comp.object.
His prime goal seems to be to bring OO into disrepute so that he
can
more readily sell his alternative "table-oriented programming".
Q4: Bryce Jacobs has made suggestions about ways to minimize the
traffic
on the newsgroup. Doesn't that show that he is not a troll?
A: The fact is that he proposed two "solutions" that could not
possibly
work. The first solution was simply an attempt to get people to
allow
him to "troll unmolested". This involves trying people not to point
out
that he is a troll on the newsgroup. To me this seems totally
unfair
to any newbie. They should be given fair warning.
The second suggestion is to modify the headers in the newsgroup to
isolate his trolling. Such a scheme was suggested by others and
failed
to work about four and a half years ago. It failed miserably then.
One thing that neither scheme guarantees is that the amount of
posts
related to BJ's postings are reduced. It is the fundamental of
nature of trolls to have a high number of posts referring to the
troll.
Q5: Is there a solution to "Bryce Jacobs" problem?
A: It has been suggested by some that BJ could start a newsgroup
called
alt.comp.programming.top ( which would not require a vote ) or
comp.programming.top ( which would require a vote ). This way BJ
could
go about proselytizing top programming with out trolling. The
fact is that BJ does not try either because he wants to troll.
Q6:What is his posting history?
A: BJ appears to have started his trolling career in posting in a
mailing
list related to OO. After reaching the point where no one would
respond
to him, he came to comp.object touting a web page critical of OO.
Excerpts
of this page are included at the bottom of this faq in the form of
a
response by Harry Protoolis. Since web pages can be
changed ( and often are changed by BJ when he realizes just how
stupid some of the things he says are), we can no longer point you
to
his original page. Suffice it to say that in other responses BJ
has included many fragment of the web site citations without
contradicting them. On this web page he demonstrated his total
ignorance
of what OO is by making many stupid claims such as:
* "OO=GUI",
* studies show code reuse takes 7 years to achieve ( he has
also ,conveniently, "lost" the references to these
studies),
* a big debate in OO is on components vs inheritance,
* that "tables" are as good as class ( when pointed out
Bill-of-Materials problems he admitted he never heard of
BoM,
a supposed db expert. I guess he never heard of Date).
etc.
After getting solidly slammed for his nutty claims he left after
about
six months. Then he proceeded to troll in comp.lang.perl.misc.
Since the archives of comp.lang.perl.misc are not exactly in the
best
state, it is hard to judge exactly what his trolls were, but from
replies one can see what he is ( hopefully the archive can be
restored
fully ). Often times when a new troll clpm appears he is compared
against
BJ. After a while he gave up and came to comp.object.
His stint in comp.object now is the longest he has stayed in a
newsgroup yet.
A part of the reason is that when he first came
comp.object.moderated
came into being and started to flourish just as he left. When he
came
back, comp.object.moderated was brought down by hackers ( no he
probably
didn't so it, he's just not that talented ). There was much
confusion
in comp.object. Before the migration back there was less
complaining about
trolls in the group or many stupid questions ( things that deserved
an
RTFM ). As a result the group became ripe for trolls. To the point
where
BJ even picked up a couple of sycophants. This made it easier for
him to
stay.
At this time he is preaching that "Table-Oriented Programming" is
like
Lisp ( he's never heard of Plodb!).
Q7: Why does BJ troll?
A: As best as we can figure out, BJ started out life as a xbase
programmer. He failed to keep up with technology and has
let his career suffer for it. Partial reasons for his trolling
include:
* He blames Perl and OO for the fate of his career.
He has several times indicated that he doesn't understand
the difference between RAD tools ( such as VB, Powerbuilder
and Delphi ) and OO. He fears that RAD tools like this will
displace traditional database programming ( in fact Delphi
has been marketed as a database tool ).
* He is attempting to legitimize "Table-Oriented Programming"
and tear down OO and Perl by making it appear that there
is a grass-roots movement for his wacky method and against
OO ( another reason to hide his name, to make it seem like
there is someone other than him who is using his technology ).
Keep in mind that should he ever make top-programming popular
he could sell himself as the inventor for top dollar. Thus
he could revive his flagging career.
* One thing that he does do is use these posts to improve his
arguments. He uses any ridicule to wean his arguments of the
most ridiculous elements to make them harder to refute. Note
that he does not actually learn anything new about programming
or object technology, he simply learns to argue in a sneakier
method. ( As an example, he now denies ever claiming "OO is
GUI",
in fact he goes ballistic over the idea. This after he
realized
just how stupid that argument was.)
* He trolls for the reason that other trolls do. They want
attention and they want to prove they are geniuses ( more
to themselves than anyone else, since they piss off everyone
else ). Basically he cries that he is "The Fool on the Hill"
( never mind that 99.9999% of the "Fools on the Hill" are just
that--fools). And certainly he shows that Art Bell quality,
having once hosted a Howard Stern web page ( now gone ) and
another one on UFOs
(http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5004/ufobs.htm).
Q8: Is this faq a troll? Is this faq off-topic to the group? Is this
faq a "personal attack"?
A: Short answers: No, No, No.
Long answers:
* For any post to be a troll, it has to gather significant
dissent in the newsgroup. This faq hardly does that. In
fact about the only people who strongly dissent are BJ
and his two sycophants. Moreover for a post to be a troll
it has to have the intent of gathering a lot of dissent
from the members of the newsgroup. There are many instances
of well meaning people that post what they think is a
innocent question, only to start a flame war. The purpose
of this FAQ is not to gather dissent. It is my belief that
in the first few months traffic will increase, principally
due to the screams of BJ and his sycophants, some due
to people posting helpful suggestions for the faq. In the
end though I hope that when BJ begins his trolling, people
do not try to engage in futile discussion ( see Q10 ) but
simply state that he is trolling and point to the faq. In this
way long useless discussions.
Another purpose of the FAQ is elucidate newbies in comp.object
about who BJ is, so that they don't get mislead by him.
Further
it gives some cover to other posters who foolishly get drawn
into discussion with him. It is an old trick to piss off
someone
in another thread and then prod them into slamming you in a
new
thread. Those not familiar with the history will then presume
that it is the replier who is the troll and not BJ.
* This is not off-topic for the group. There is no doubt that in
the mind of BJ it is offtopic. BJ does not want newbies to see
that he is a troll. So anything that does so is considered not
kosher by him in one way or another ( actually he will try
to argue that it is not kosher in all possible ways ).
In general discussions of the operations ( such as for example
creating a moderated group, or a group different but related )
have always been considered on-topic. A FAQ describing a troll
that populates the group is therefore on topic. Note however
that persistent opinions which run against the theme of the
newsgroup are generally not considered on topic. This is the
case in particular when a question does not suggest a response.
For example, a person who receives a reply to a question such
as "I'm having trouble understanding how to do X in UML.". The
reply says because OO sucks. This reply would be considered
offtopic.
* Of thousands of replies that I have read, I have not seen
any posts which say anything like "BJ has slept with sheep."
"BJ cheats on his wife" or any other such attack. That does
not mean that there have not been personal attacks, but it
does show that they are a very,very,very small fraction of
the posts to the newsgroup.
BJ would like you to believe that these are personal attacks
and therefore out of bounds, because he does not want you to
learn that he is a troll. The fact is that all of the posts
that BJ considers as personal attacks come down to one thing.
They all essentially say that he is a troll.
Is calling BJ a troll a personal attack? Consider the rules
of evidence in a court of law. It is permissible under these
rules to ( for example ) introduce evidence that a witness
was convicted of perjury. The reason that it is not considered
a personal attack is that it is considered relevant in
determining whether or not the witness tells the truth
in the present case. In the same vein, whether or not
a BJ is a troll is relevant to the veracity of his posts,
and is thus not a personal attack. Of course BJ has a
recourse to people pointing out that he is a troll,
he can stop trolling.
Q10: Should I try to engage in a technical discussion with BJ?
A: Let me give you a taste of what a technical discussion with
BJ will be like.
BJ:No.Your explanation is wrong. Give me an example.
Show me some code.
You: Well, here is an example in the telecommunications
industry. I can't show you the code because it contains
proprietary information. Besides it runs 100 pages.
BJ: Telecommunications does count because telecommunications
is not a real world application. Besides you can't show
me any code. That's because YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT OO WORKS.
You: Well here is another example from the avionics field.
Since this is small and non-proprietary I can post it.
BJ: Your example does not count! What does avionics have to do
with the business world? SHOW ME THE MONEY. YOU ARE NOT
PROVING HAT OO WORKS BECAUSE OO CAN't PROVE THAT OO WORKS.
You: Well what about this application in the financial industry?
BJ: THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY DOES NOT COUNT. THERE ARE LOTS OF
APPLICATIONS THAT DON'T INVOLVE THE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY.
You: What about this work which involves complex computational
geometry ( that it the study of points and planes that
allows one to make quantitative statements about graphics
).
BJ: That's complex math, complex math doesn't count.
Besides it's graphics. That means it's GUI's.
Everyone knows that OO is about GUIs. YOU'RE NOT
SHOWING ME ANY PROOF, BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF.
After a while you tune to the fact that no matter what domain you
choose he will claim it is outside the mainstream. So instead
you pick a generic set of classes...
You: Here are these properties that can be associated with
collection
classes which make doing X,Y and Z easier.
BJ: What THIS ISN'T AN APPLICATION!!!!! THIS IS SYSTEM CODE.
EVERYONE KNOWSE THAT OO ONLY WORKS FOR GUI AND SYSTEMS CODE.
YOU HAVE PROVED ANYTHING.
You: That's it. I've tried, but you just don't want to learn.
There is nothing more that I can do.
BJ: YOU GIVE UP BECAUSE YOU CAN"T PROVE THAT OO IS SUPERIOR.
THAT'S BECAUSE OO IS A LOUSY WAY OF WRITING CODE. YOU JUST
DON"T WANT TO LISTEN BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CLOSED MIND. F U.
Congratulations. In a few minutes you've experienced the same
thing that many others have over a period of weeks.
If there is one thing that I would hope you get out of this
faq, it is this: Any technical exchange you get into with Bryce
Jacobs will wind up as above. YOU CANNOT HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION
WITH BRYCE JACOBS BECAUSE BJ DOES NOT WANT TO BE RATIONAL. HE IS
NOT CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH, WITH ANYTHING THAT WILL PROMOTE
COMPUTING. HE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH PROMOTING TOP PROGRAMMING
AT THE EXPENSE OF OO, AND HE WILL MANIPULATE, LIE AND CHEAT
TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL. TO ENGAGE IN TECHNICAL ARGUMENT WITH
HIM IS SIMPLY TO BECOME HIS NEXT VICTIM.
Here is a short list of only some of the people who have given
up discussing technical things with him, because they felt it
was fruitless.
Harry Protoolis
` Richard Riehle
Joachim Durchholz
Christophe Thibaut
Tim Ottinger
Robert Martin
Q11: What about ignoring him, or killfiling him?
A: Yes. And if you don't want to be bothered by him
either is a good solution. Some people ( such as I)
do want to pay some attention and warn others of
him.
Q13: Is there any chance that anything BJ says is true?
A: As the saying goes even a broken clock is right two
times a day. But do you want to rely on it?
As for his overall theories. Well consider this:
BJ who claims to be an expert in RDBMS is unaware
of Bill-of-Materials, and does not know that most
RDBMS are built on top of ISAM databases.
Q14: You mentioned the two sycophants. What do you mean by this?
A: Not every troll collects sycophants, but many do. In the case
of BJ, it seems that he has collected two in this group.
* There is Peter Douglas. He has been posting quite some time
pushing a well known technique called functional programming
( telling in itself because if he were that interested in
learning and teaching functional programming, he would post
to comp.fundamental-programming instead ). It seems that he
does not have the courage to troll him self, but is not above
supporting a troll if it furthers functional programming.
* Paul Sinnet. While Peter Douglas has actually revealed his
past, Paul Sinnet has not. His posts on OO are trivial enough
to suggest that he is a college student. While quality of posts
is not always a good barometer, he also display a certain
naivete'. Specifically that his posts can bring as much quality
to the group as can Grady Booch's, or coworkers of Ivar
Jacobson.
The hardest thing to track is whether he is simply ( from the
perspective of BJ) a "useful idiot"/willing dupe, or a troll
in training. Certainly his freedon-of-speach arguments for
BJ indicate this ( strange how the same freedoms don't apply
to Attila Feher, of course some people are more equal than
others ).
There is also indication that he is a troll-in-training.
He has appointed himself "Emperor of comp.object" by speaking
for "longtime posters" rather that allowing them to speak
for themselves. Of course there is also the crack about
the "many emails he receives", a standard troll trick
' since one can never actually verify the number of emails
he receives ( not to mention that he is probably not first
on the list to be sent email ).
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notable posts, many are Stupid BJ quotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On functional programming:
Thread: Struggling with OO
Group: comp.object
Date: 5/26/1
>I wish they would pick a different name for "functional
programming"
>because it often gets confused with "procedural" or "structural"
>programming.
>
>Any new name suggestions?
Comment:
Functional programming has had that name for twenty years with no
one complaining about the name. Typical troll behavior to think that
people should change established names just because the troll wants
to.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Moderation:
Thread: Perl Criticism
Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl.misc
Date: 01/06/1999
>
>[P.S. screw those arrogant, lazy mind-police known as
'moderators']
Comment:
Extremely typical troll behavior. While moderators do occasionally
get in the way, most people don't demonstrate such general hate
against them.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On OO is GUI:
Thread: The FlakeyMind/Bryce Jacobs FAQ (v0.1)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.perl.misc
Date: 5/29/1
>> On this page he demonstrated
>> his total ignorance of what OO is by making stupid claims
such as
>> "OO=GUI".
>I NEVER CLAIMED THAT!!!!!!
>THAT IS A FAT LIE! (Or bad reading on your part)
>Why do you keep stating that same falsehood over and over
>again, even after I corrected it in the past?
Comment:
You can see what I mean about going ballistic.
------------------
On OO is GUI:
In the his very first thread to comp.object he said:
Thread: Criticism of OO
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 1998/04/01
Message #10
>A: I am the product of the same education process that most of the
other
>programmers out there get. Most OOP books focus on GUI's. When
they cover
>data handling, they fail to show how OOP is an improvement over
table-
>oriented or other methods. If I am uninformed, then so are most
programmers.
>If you agree with this, then OOP is doomed because the industry is
not
>presenting [training] OOP properly. My alleged ignorance may
simply be a
>mirror to a much larger problem.
Comment:
A defense of why on his site he claims OO is GUI.
-----------------
Thread: Criticism of OO
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 1998/04/01
Message #15
>> False. OOP has it's roots in systems simulation, this
>> opening assertion suggests that you need to do some
>> serious research.
>
>I did not say it had its ROOTS in GUI's, I said it became popular
because of
>GUI's. Who is lacking in the "serious research" now? Birth and
growth are
>different.
Comment:
OK.He's backing off a little, but not much.
In fact here is another theme. Claiming that it is a shame that all
the research money is going into OO. Yet claiming no serious
research has ever taken place.
----------------------------
Thread: Criticism of OO
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 1998/04/03
Message #41
>> OO's popularity was driven more by business modelling
>> than it was by GUI's. [or hype]
>This is where you and me disagree.
Comment:
Back to saying "OO is GUI".
---------------------------
Thread: Criticism of OO
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 1998/04/09
Message #732
>> When I got involved, GUI was not a big focus,
>> and I'm still not sure that OO and GUI have ever been very close
>> bedfellows.
>
>This may be so if
>you hung around acedemics and technical people, but in manager's
mind,
>"Visual", "Component", "Objects", "GUI", "Windows", "Drag-and-drop
icons"
>were all lumped together as a "new vision of doing things". This
vision may
>not be accurate, but that is the perception that made OO languages
a must for
>product pickers.
Comments:
Now be implies that for academics
OO is not GUI but that does not matter because academics don't count.
However in the real world OO is GUI.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the original responses contains may quotes
from BJs web page. Comments are embedded in [Ed:[^\]]* ].
More quotes about OO == GUI.
From: Harry Protoolis (ha...@nautronix.com.au)
Subject: Re: Criticisms of OOP (Object Oriented Programming)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 1998/04/01
Messsage #9
OK, I read your page, mostly I disagree with it. Here are my
comments:
> The GUI Link
>
> OOP became popular primarily because of GUI interfaces. Screen
objects
False. OOP has it's roots in systems simulation, this opening
assertion
suggests that you need to do some serious research. It's popularity
began with systems programming, what do you think they were
building at
Bell Labs ? Word processors ? No, in fact as I recall they were
looking
at software for conrtrolling telephone switches.
> correspond closely with OOP objects, making them easier to
manipulate
> in a program. We do not disagree that OOP works fairly well
for GUI's,
> but it is now being sold as the solve-all and be-all of
programming.
[Ed: First attempt to link OO to GUI's. OO was GUI, but now it's
being
sold as something else. Implying that all OO should be used for is
GUI.]
The number of times I have heard respected OO people give the 'no
silver
bullet' speech ..., OO is not a silver bullet, if anything one if
the
fundamental assertions is that there *is no silver bullet*.
> Some argue that OOP is still important even if not dealing
directly
> with GUI's.
[Ed: The insuation gets stronger. Infact he seems to imply that OO
has it's
roots in GUI.]
It is, most of my work is with high end real time systems for
signal
processing, OO techniques are a vital part of our approach and have
had
a major positive impact.
> In our opinion, much of the hype about OOP is faddish. OOP
> in itself does NOT allow programs to do things that they could
not do
> before. OOP is more of a program organizational tool rather
than a set
> of new solutions or functions.
Yes ! absolutely. OO is about organising software to deal with
large
complex systems. If all it does is allow us to build larger more
complex
systems than before then it is a revolution.
> Although GUI's revolutionized the industry, there is more to
computers
> than GUI's. Also, there may be other was to handle GUI's
besides OOP.
[Ed: now it is clear that he thinks OO is GUI. Instead of arguing
against OO
he is arguing against GUIs]
OO is not primarily, or even mostly, about GUI's. OO is about large
systems with complex behaviour.
> Nobody ever bothered to do a proper study. There is more proof
to the
> existence of UFO's than to OOP being the best way to do GUI's
or any
> other programming topic.
There is no 'proof' of the exitence of UFO's at all. There is a
respectable and growing body of OO research. Certainly it is early
days
yet.
> There are what we call table-intensive or list-intensive
applications
> (or parts of applications), batch-intensive applications,
> animation-intensive applications, communication-intensive
> applications, etc. The syntax or native data types optimized
for each
> type of application could be very different. Although a
generic
> programming language could probably be used for most or all of
these,
> this does not make the generic language the best solution. We
> especially beleive this to be true for table/list-intensive
> programming.
Yep, fine, write it in dBase IV for all I care. We have done the
4GL
experiment, it works well for small simple projects, it is a
disaster
when you try to model complex behaviours.
> We are not saying the OOP is bad, per se; we are just
frustrated with
> the fact that OOP has slowed or even reversed programming
progress in
> these other areas. OOP has contributed some good ideas to
programming,
> but is certainly no holy grail.
OO is a powerful meme, it is attractive. The dominant anecdotal
evidence
is that programmers enjoy working on OO systems. If you want to do
research on other approaches, go for it. However don't blame others
if
your favourite research topic doesn't find favour with the
industry.
> Note: Some people associate "drop-in objects" with object
oriented
> programming.
This is ridiculous.
> Drop-in or draggable objects or icons can be completely
> implemented without OOP. OOP is a programming technique, not
> necessarily a GUI technique.
OOP is *not* a GUI technique.
> Payoff Rare
>
> There are several studies that show that OOP only pays off if
a
> programming project is "well-managed". There are also a few
studies
> that show that even non-OOP COBOL projects can achieve the
same famous
> "code reuse" and "flexibility" goals that OOP lays claim to if
managed
> properly. (Sorry, we lost the references.)
[Ed: What can anyone say "How conviiieeeeeeenieeeent."]
I have a perfectly mervellous proof of this theorem which the
margin is
t1oo narrow to contain - Fermat.
> Studies show that most OOP projects do not really achieve the
goals
> (improvements) of the OOP promise because all parties have to
buy into
> the proper methodologies. These parties include programmers,
project
> managers, and top level managers. Since code reuse and added
> flexibility often come only after about 7 years, many are
unwilling to
> follow the process correctly. Using OOP often slows down
progress in
> the first few years. If done right, OOP works as a long-term
> investment; it is not an instant results tool even according
to OOP
> experts.
Yes, and ?
> Many project teams just slap the label "OOP" on their project
because
> they used OOP languages and tools, not because they took
advantage of
> OOP potential. OOP by itself does not improve productivity.
Many
> studies say in practical terms that most OOP projects fail to
produce
> benefits over non-OOP methods because for political,
technical, or
> training reasons, OOP is "not being used properly."
Yes, and ?
> As programmers we can say from experience that managers rarely
reward
> or encourage long-term planning. Obviously there will always
be a
> tradeoff between getting a project done fast and building a
project
> with future changes in mind. Since managers do not give a rats
behind
> about 7 years away when their job may not last another 7
months, the
> programmer is usually forced to take the fast route. This is
the sad
> but true reality.
Yes, but in 7 years which companies will be left ? I heard this
argument
10 years ago as to why I should become a mainframe COBOL programmer
rather than a Unix C programmer. Me and my bank manager are both
glad I
chose the latter even though at the time COBOL and mainframes were
dominant.
> It is also difficult to quantify the amount of future planning
in
> application design. The proof is in the future and in the
details, and
> the people who sign a developer's paycheck rarely dig this
deep.
Again, lets see what happens, this sort of unsupported forecasting
adds
nothing to the argument. Obviously a lot of people are investing in
OO,
otherwise you wouldn't be complaining about it.
> OOP Community Still Divided
>
> In addition, the OOP community is strongly divided on whether
the
> "component" model or the "inheritance" model is the way to go.
> Microsoft seams to favor the component model. The jury is
still out on
> this one. Without getting into the details of this battle,
let's just
> say OOP still has some growing up to do.
This appears to be made up. There is no such general debate. There
are
debates about such issues as remote method invocation, persistence
and
object distribution, but they have nothing to do with the general
concepts of OO.
> Not Table-Friendly
>
> OOP often does not map well to relational databases. Even
though OOP
> languages are common, object-oriented databases (known as
"OODMS") are
> not. OODMS's are in their infancy and are not selling very
well at the
> moment. In business applications, most object instances are
actually
> equivalent to fields and records. A good data dictionary
> (table-oriented technique) is almost identical to using OOP
> constructors, destructors, and attributes associated with
fields and
> tables.
No it is not. The relational model fails to address issues of
complex
objects with the sort of heirarchical structure commonly found in
the
real world. Have you ever heard of the Bill-Of-Materials problem ?
A
common business problem which the realtional model totally fails to
address.
> Using relational tables with OOP requires converting fields
into
> objects and visa-verse when putting them back into the tables.
This is
> a painstaking process and can waste a lot of programming time.
The
> popular OOP languages like Java and C++ require the use of
API's or
> API-like constructs to manipulate databases. API's are fine
for
> occasional or special use, but if 80 percent of your program
> manipulates tables, API's become a bottleneck.
By API you mean libraries ? What is an API-like construct ? If it's
a
database language you want so problem, but why not an OO database
language ?
> We liken API's to having to reach into a small hole to get
tools in
> and out of a tool box. Table-oriented languages are like
dumping the
> tools all over the floor around you so that they are readily
> available. Although this analogy makes it sound messy, it
actually
> makes one much more productive because more of the programming
code is
> to directly manipulate data instead of pre- and
post-processing it as
> it comes and goes through API's.
Surely this depends on your API, in any event your data will be
getting
transformed as it goes to and from your persistent store.
> Melding Can Be Hazardous
>
> OOP pushers like to talk about how great it is to meld the
methods
> (procedures) and the data together. Data in traditional
relational
> form is relatively easy to transfer to different systems as
technology
> and vendors change. Procedures are NOT easy to transfer. If
you mix
> the data in with methods, then you are STUCK with the current
> programming language. You cannot easily read the data except
with the
> OOP language that generated it.
What does the data *mean* without the associated behaviours ? This
is
one of the true powers of OO. Instead of a row of data like this:
name rate level
-------------------------------------
John Smith 8000.00 2
I get an object which I can ask questions like:
o.name()
o.costPerHour()
o.isManager()
> When a new language fad replaces OOP, how do you convert
legacy Java
> objects into Zamma-2008 objects? (If objects even exist in the
future.
> I will eat a week's pay if OOP is still in vogue in 2015.)
I'll hold you to that ...
> How many
> times do different programming languages and systems have to
share
> data? Very often in the real world. Thus, it is usually safer
to keep
> large data pools separate from methods.
Where two or more pieces of software share a piece of data surely
you
want them to treat the data in the same way, observe the same
invariants
and apply a number of the same algorithms. If John is a manager in
the
security system he should be a manager in the payroll system. If
payroll
is paying him $50.00 per hour, financial planning had better be
planning
to pay him $50.00 per hour.
> Tree-Happy
>
> The 'inheritance' model of OOP tends to assume the world can
be forced
> into a hierarchical structure, when in fact the relational
structure
> is more flexible and better matches the real world. Even a
company
> management hierarchy is often defined in a nonhierarchical way
when
> management plays political games or uses the matrix approach.
Several
> times we have seen simple hierarchical structures turn into
something
> a bit different when new government regulations or management
changes
> come along. Although it is true that OOP does not have to use
> hierarchies, it would lose one of its alleged great selling
points
> without hierarchies.
How does the relational model deal with the the fact that the world
contains clear is-a relationships ? How about many-to-many
aggregation ?
While you are right the not *everything* is a heirarchy, many
things
are, given that the relational model is very bad at handling simple
heirarchies, let alone complex ones, how does that make it better ?
> Research Lacking
>
> Furthermore, there is very little research on whether non-OOP
> languages can be used such that reuse and flexibility can be
increased
> to the same levels as properly-used OOP. In other words, the
industry
> keeps adding new languages and features to solve the same
problems
> instead of improving use of existing languages. Many are
coming to
> believe that most of the computer industry is led by hype
instead of
> careful research. OOP spread like a weed before there was any
proof
> that it could or would be beneficial. (And the current proof
is highly
> conditional).
Yes, but there is some. OOP spread because programmers liked it and
because it *is* getting results. Otherwise all those companies out
there
using OO would be getting mowed down by their non OO competitors.
> The hardest part of getting OOP to deliver promised benefits,
> according to the experts, is identifying common and generic
business
> functions and processes. Once identified, they perhaps can be
> implemented in a Table-Oriented language or any other
general-purpose
> language as easily as they are in OOP, especially with a good
> data-dictionary-like model. (The data dictionary can be
'virtual', it
> does not have to be built into the language.)
Language support helps though. Look at X Windows to see how hard OO
is
without language support. Without support for key concepts like
inheritence and polymorphism few of the key benefits of abstraction
of
the business model can be achieved.
> Another Fad?
>
> OOP is a lot like those idealistic development fads that
failed to
> prove themselves in the real world. Expert systems, CASE, and
3-tier
> client/server technology are three other examples of
technology that
> failed in the real world or took on a niche status. After the
market
> place realizes the shortcomings of these technologies, the
die-hard
> supporters always say the same thing: "They WOULD work if
people
> simply used them properly." We are already hearing this from
OOP
> apologists.
How many of the above list of failures achieved the prominence that
OO
has already acheived ? OO is already a success beyond anything
acheived
by Expert systems, or CASE or the others.
I've run out of time. This will do for now ,..
H
-----------------------------------------------------
BJs mask removed, and how he likes to talk about people behind
their backs.
From: ChrisRath (chri...@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Criticism of Meyer's OOSC2
Newsgroups: comp.object
Date: 2000/02/01
Message #325
>I remember a few Smalltalk (ST) fans talking about the "get it"
curve
>for ST. They talked about the long it took for it finally click.
>However, when pressed to articulate how it was better after the
>clickage, they failed miserably IMO. They talked about certain
concepts
>in a vague sort of way, but they were unable to put it into basic
>metrics, like factoring, protection, maintanence jumps, code size,
etc.
>
>They acted like hippies on drugs, to be frank.
>
ROFL. You are too funny Bryce Jacobs. :)
For everyone's information, it was Jay O'Conner and Me that
discussed the
learning curve involved in Smalltalk. Neither of us is on drugs,
though Jay
does play the Bass guitar. Anyhow, anyone that is interested in
further
meanderings of the Bryce troll is welcome to go read the board we
set up to try
and prevent Bryce from overheating the Infoworld forums at:
http://server2.ezboard.com/bobjectorienteddevelopment in the
Language War
forums.
As an aside, I suppose it was my refusal to discuss OOP with Bryce
an further
until he read OOSC/2 that prompted him to get around to actually
purchasing the
book. I have my doubts about whether he read it or whether he just
skimmed the
first few chapters. One of these days I'll have to continue the
discussion
with Bryce on EZBoard. Until that time he's all yours in
comp.object. Enjoy
the quantity of his posts. :)
Observed that this is the third group that considers BJ a troll. On
top of
that he is willing to characterise Chris Rath and Jay O'Commer as
burned out
druggies ( maybe personal experience?) behind their backs.
Attila Feher
OH BOY! There is no such thing as X Windows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Windows=exepnsive bill Gates. It is X or X Window!!!!
A
Dave Harris
> In fact about the only people who strongly dissent [to this FAQ]
> are BJ and his two sycophants.
I strongly object to this faq. I am not a sycophant. I object because:
(1) It is personally abusive.
(2) It uses foul language.
(3) It is very long; the repetition wastes bandwidth.
Please do not post it again.
Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK | "Weave a circle round him thrice,
bran...@cix.co.uk | And close your eyes with holy dread,
| For he on honey dew hath fed
http://www.bhresearch.co.uk/ | And drunk the milk of Paradise."
Attila Feher
>
> olc...@interaccess.com (Thaddeus L Olczyk) wrote (abridged):
> > In fact about the only people who strongly dissent [to this FAQ]
> > are BJ and his two sycophants.
>
> I strongly object to this faq. I am not a sycophant. I object because:
>
> (1) It is personally abusive.
> (2) It uses foul language.
> (3) It is very long; the repetition wastes bandwidth.
And it always starts a new flame thread where troll abuse can live out
to its full potential. Actually it does not help (unfortunately), since
people involved with a troll are already taken personal abusive comments
from the troll so they already "in fight" and those who are not - will
not read this long mail. BTW if a FAQ is that long the "netiqual" way
is to post only a URL...
A
Thaddeus L Olczyk
<Attila...@lmf.ericsson.se> wrote:
>And it always starts a new flame thread where troll abuse can live out
>to its full potential.
Actually the faq itself does not draw that much attention.
But it does cause Bryce to revert to his true nature
( like a werewolf taking wolf form under a full moon )
and start posting like crazy. I don't see that as a disadvantage
as people get to see him as he really is.
>Actually it does not help (unfortunately), since
>people involved with a troll are already taken personal abusive comments
>from the troll so they already "in fight" and those who are not - will
>not read this long mail.
Actually my hoe is that people already in the fight will stop
fighting and reply "it useless to fight with you, see the faq".
I would hope that people point others to question 10, which I see
as a really good question giving people who might want to
try the true BJ feel.
If you suggest that people read that question alone they might
realize who he is. Then they might read other parts, as they wish.
>BTW if a FAQ is that long the "netiqual" way
>is to post only a URL...
>
Unfortunately I don't really have a place for it. One thing that I've
been thinking of doing is stripping the last section of posts into
another email. Unfortunately it doubles the posts, but it also makes
the first part more readable.
Attila Feher
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:09:05 +0300, Attila Feher
> <Attila...@lmf.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> >And it always starts a new flame thread where troll abuse can live out
> >to its full potential.
>
> Actually the faq itself does not draw that much attention.
So why do you tell its purpose is to inform people... if you know nobody
cares????
> But it does cause Bryce to revert to his true nature
> ( like a werewolf taking wolf form under a full moon )
Aha. So your help to the community is to free a werewolf on us. THX.
> and start posting like crazy. I don't see that as a disadvantage
> as people get to see him as he really is.
Did they tell you they want to see that?
> Actually my hoe is that people already in the fight will stop
> fighting and reply "it useless to fight with you, see the faq".
They won't, because than they line up with you in using abusive terms.
They do say I stop discussion with you, because U R only here for a
arguing and making flame - but noone will refer to your FAQ. It is just
too personal.
> I would hope that people point others to question 10, which I see
> as a really good question giving people who might want to
> try the true BJ feel.
And they might not... They would like this guy to be ignored. One
little post to a newbie (when topmind comes in to destroy a thread)
telling please ignore this guy. Also comment to those, who starts to
argue with him: don't continue, it is worthless.
> If you suggest that people read that question alone they might
> realize who he is. Then they might read other parts, as they wish.
As far as I see they don't whish. You want to fight a troll with
flame. The worst thing you can do. Read the links I have posted.
> >BTW if a FAQ is that long the "netiqual" way
> >is to post only a URL...
> >
> Unfortunately I don't really have a place for it.
That is your problem. People in 3rd world countries like UK and Hungary
pay a lot for internet access - based on time they use. So you cause
thousands of people cost for something they did not ask for... some
specifically asked you _not_ to post it.
> One thing that I've
> been thinking of doing is stripping the last section of posts into
> another email. Unfortunately it doubles the posts, but it also makes
> the first part more readable.
Please. Don't double the posts. Stop them. Don't make an opportunity
for a troll to flame.
A
Samuel T. Harris
At the risk of being pedantic, the full name is "X Window System".
--
Samuel T. Harris, Senior Software Engineer II
Raytheon, Aerospace Engineering Services
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"
Attila Feher
>
> Attila Feher wrote:
> >
> > > Language support helps though. Look at X Windows to see how hard OO
> >
> > OH BOY! There is no such thing as X Windows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > Windows=exepnsive bill Gates. It is X or X Window!!!!
> >
> > A
>
> At the risk of being pedantic, the full name is "X Window System".
Right. I was opposing to the little 's' there :-)))
A
Topmind
Topmind
Hey, you are back!
Long time no read.
I just got done discussing our country/tax debate
in the V-table thread. The example that never
goes away.
-T-
Paul Sinnett
>A: Not every troll collects sycophants, but many do. In the case
> of BJ, it seems that he has collected two in this group.
> * There is Peter Douglas.
A sycophant is somebody who uses flattery to gain favours. I
don't want anything from Topmind. But if I did I would not use
flattery to get it.
> While Peter Douglas has actually revealed his
> past, Paul Sinnet has not.
The only other person I can remember who asked for details of my
background was Elliott. You are in good company. You could
search google to find this information but you'll probably have
to spell my name right first. If you search also for "Coyote"
(the name of the company I currently work for) or "video games"
you will find some background on me.
> His posts on OO are trivial enough to suggest that he is a
> college student.
Because college students only ever ask trivial questions?
No. I'm not a student.
> While quality of posts is not always a good barometer, he
> also display a certain naivete'.
My posts may seem trivial to somebody as learned as yourself. But
any fool can make something simple seem horrendously complex. Most
of the discussions on this group are not about complex matters.
But I find many replies needlessly confusing.
> Specifically that his posts can bring as much quality
> to the group as can Grady Booch's, or coworkers of Ivar
> Jacobson.
While I would feel flattered if some readers of this group felt
that I did, I don't recall ever making such an assertion. Here you
are acting exactly as Topmind does: you assign an invented assertion
to somebody else, then complain about their attitude.
> Certainly his freedon-of-speach arguments for
> BJ indicate this ( strange how the same freedoms don't apply
> to Attila Feher, of course some people are more equal than
> others ).
Of course they apply to everyone equally. I only moan when
somebody posts nothing but shouted abuse. I criticise Topmind for
the same behaviour.
> There is also indication that he is a troll-in-training.
> He has appointed himself "Emperor of comp.object" by speaking
> for "longtime posters" rather that allowing them to speak
> for themselves.
Again you are using Topmind's tactics: I have done no such thing.
> Of course there is also the crack about
> the "many emails he receives",
And again: I said "a few emails."
I thought the information might moderate the behaviour of those who
care how newcomers to comp.object see them.
In conclusion I think that an FAQ, such as this, could be useful if
it contained less libel and more factual content. I have moved into
the category of those who have given up discussing things with
Topmind. I decided this because he has satisfied me that he is not
able to apply logical reasoning consistently. I still think many of
the points he raises are valid topics for discussion.
Topmind
>
> are acting exactly as Topmind does: you assign an invented assertion
> to somebody else, then complain about their attitude.
I never purposely do such a thing. I may confuse who said what
because I don't explicitly track who says what. Thus, I
usually try to say, "somebody recently said ......" if
I am not sure who said it. (Unlike Thaddeus, I focus on
the technical content/merit of the message rather than the
source.)
If I make such mistakes, I would rather youses point them
out as soon as possible rather than months later in
a "you always do X" pattern message.
-T-