[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Is OO a deliberate fraud?
It bothers me to hear of Ruth's "dismal lack of response" for
CPA 2006 ...
Of course I 'know' (as do you all) that CSP (et-all) is right and that
OO is a bodge ... but Industry is about making money not about doing
In our past successful companies and economies had enough slack that
money was forthcoming to support activities that were not strictly
business-opportunity oriented ... But the increased global competition
in every aspect of business and economic life has steadily squeezed out
(almost) all of the slack. Sarbanes Oxley has applied further screws on
Today, Industry is like the story of the guy putting on his sneakers as
he gets into bed in a tent in the African bush. His friend asks why? He
says its because of the leopards, lions and tigers! "You don't expect to
out-run a leopard because you are wearing those!" his friend says ...He
replies "You're missing the point entirely ... I only need to out-run
Industry is not concerned about being theoretically best, it is
concerned about being better than its competitors. You don't achieve
that at low risk, by throwing 'it all' away and starting again. Much
better (though less sophisticated) to push what you know and love ...
just one more generation!
OO was/is adequate to overcome a complexity problem that arose. Threads
overcomes (or might) another ... Neither perfectly; both good enough!
Which brings me to the issue of CSP et-all. There will be a time when
evolution and patches will not suffice; and then revolution *is* the
only way. There will be blood on the streets ... but the survivors will
be those who per-chance were working on the 'right' technology at that
time. I believe that CSP, Occam, Transputer holds a lot of the
trump-cards, and it is a community such as yours that is keeping it
alive until the 'call' happens.
... After 21 years (I thought it was 1973.ish myself) it would
be a shame to let it die; But I don't think it will! Let it consolidate
to its core advocates, 'skirmish' from time to time; and wait.
Roll on the revolution.
Prof Ian Phillips: Principal Staff Eng. T:+44 1223 400771
ARM Ltd, 110 Fulbourn Rd S:+44 1223 400400
Cambridge, UK. CB1 9NJ. (VP Bath University) F:+44 7092 151049
[mailto:owner-java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:10 PM
To: Ruth Ivimey-Cook; Jim Sack
Cc: 'P.H.Welch'; java-threads@xxxxxxxxxx;
Subject: Is OO a deliberate fraud?
> Ruth, Jim, and all,
> This is in indirect response to Ruth Ivimey-Cook "Re: CPA 2006 - Call
> for Papers", in which she laments a dismal lack of response. I
> think it's the
> death throes of science being choked out by fake science, and
> I think I've
> identified the culprit.
> I'm posting this to both occam and OO-based supporters, to be
> fair, and
> allow serious answers to my points. Merrill R. Chapman in his
> tech history
> ("In Search of Stupidity", Apress / Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003)
> quotes, as 1992-1993 era OO definition at Borland, the
> following excerpt
> from "What is Object-Oriented Software" by Terry Montlick
> (www.softwaredesign.com), given here in full:
>> An object is a 'black box' which receives and sends messages.
>> A black box actually contains code (sequences of computer
>> instructions) and data (information which the inctruction
>> operates on). Traditionally, code and data have been kept
>> apart. For example, in the C language, units of code are
>> called functions, while units of data are called structures.
>> Functions and structures are not formally connected in C.
>> A C function can operate on more than one type of structure
>> and more than one function can operate on the same structure.
-- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.