See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Is OO a deliberate fraud?
Source:
occam-pi.org
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 7, 2006
Author: Larry Dickson
Post Date: 2008-02-08 14:48:17 by Tauzero
Keywords: None
Views: 349
Comments: 23
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. > > Not so for object-oriented software! In o-o (object-oriented) > programming, code and data are merged into a single > indivisible thing---an object. This has some big advantages, > as you'll see in a moment. But first, here is why SDC > developed the 'black box' metaphor for an object. A primary > rule of object-oriented programming is that as the user of > an object, you should never need to peek inside the box! ALL YOU OCCAM AND CSP FOLKS... DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR? It's stolen from the definition of a process, and fits real OO (inheritance, polymorphism, method calls) as well as a shoe fits an ear. Were they really saying that in 1993? Because then the whole thing was fraud from day one---describing one thing (the right thing) while doing a completely different game with, yes, structures (objects) and functions (methods). Processes offer the black box of freedom from side effects, while OO offers the black box of ignorance. Inheritance, polymorphism, and especially encapsulation say that you are supposed to treat the pushbutton for uploading a file as the same as the pushbutton for shutting down a nuclear reactor. Don't look inside the box; pretend they are the same. And if two black boxes A and B both upload files, which "impenetrable" black box contains the shared file system and network drivers that they CALL? This is the emperor's new clothes! Example: I just finished examining US Patent Application 20030182503 (go to uspto.gov > eBusiness... Patents File Search View > Search Patents and Published Applications). It is intending to set up independent tasks, but in [0070] it says "the group_write I/O task 352 calls (step 354) an IO task from the disk object 225a..." That implies multiple stack nestings and out-of-black-box side effects. That's the only example of metaphor run amok that I can deal with this week. This admitted metaphor (image dissimilar to reality) generates ever-huger languages and OSs, which is proof it is bad science. The fact that it never works without being tinkered with is further proof. OO just grabs whatever paradigm description sounds good and applies it to itself. It's as if the Renaissance epicycle people neutralized Kepler by saying epicycles were ellipses. It's as fraudulent as the old practice of big companies announcing a product to kill a smaller competitor, and then not bothering to produce. We can't coexist with this monster; it's killing all good science. Have you noticed life is like a Poul Anderson novel where science is dying and all that remains is huge, slavish technology-by-rote? We need to go back to scratch, to static non-virtual assembly language design, and build all serious design in a higher-level language free of OO and other infinite metaphor. Once we control the harness, they can use OO if they want for what it is good for: manipulating graphic widgets in a GUI.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Tauzero (#0)
What does this mean?
Join the Ron Paul Revolution I would like to get some of whatever it is that they are on...
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx I'll take a stab at that here during break... Essentially (and I've believed this for a while about software in general), Object Oriented Programming has constrained the majority of the computer user population to working within a set environment that offers very little innovation over time, merely new "widgets" and graphical capabilities and a requirement to constantly upgrade processor speed due to code bloat. If you took most of the programs utilized in your average office and re-wrote them in say, assembly language, and cut all of the useless and redundant crap out that legacies over from each "new" incarnation you'd have software that would fit and run fine on an X86 architecture machine. Mostly nobody has really gone anywhere, they just think they have...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Thanks much for this explanation - I've read that microsloth still has all the old buggy crap from years gone by in their 'latest' offerings.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution What OS do you use? Thanks.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution Its called "legacy code" in the industry. Stuff that has been in the code tree forever that nobody wants to touch.
America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall and the Congress is out to lunch.
Exactly. The instruction set executes faster and more efficiently as it is closer, by orders of magnitude, to binary coding. The inefficiency of modern memory hog programs require 100 times the memory and speed of earlier Desktop machines because the code is written in derivative languages which are themselves written in a higher level language a step removed from assembly language. For those not familiar with Computer Languages here is a rough hierarchy: Binary Code: Literally coded in ones and zeros. This is the most fundamental level and is actually what a computer processor executes or performs on. Assembly Code (or Assembler): A language one generation removed from Binary and consists of instructions to a microprocessor to perform the most basic tasks. It is written in Binary and takes and groups basic instructions into one basic command. The instruction set at the most basic level for a given microprocessor. The higher level languages, such as "C" are themselves comprised of lower level language commands grouped together as a larger command. An example would be to add a number. In Assembler language the instruction to add two numbers is made up of a number of individual steps written in the Assembly Language and in the higher level language those Assembly Language commands are used as a single command such as "ADD X+X". So in a higher level language their individual commands are actually routines, sets of instructions written to perform a task, written in the more basic Assembly Language. To run a program the higher level language commands are translated into machine executable individual instructions. So, you have an extra step to run a command, actually two but we won't go there, first it has to be translated into something the computer can actually run and then it has to be run. Object Oriented Code is yet another step removed from that higher level language and is comprised of sets of instructions generally written in a higher level language. So it also adds, among other things, another level of translation required adding to the inefficiency. Also for the gallery - current generation languages are several orders of instructions removed from the native language of the microprocessor they are instructing. I'm looking for an easy analogy, but is is kind of like one of those carnival games where you use the funky remote control scoop to pick up a prize and drop it in the slot. It works, sometimes, but is certainly not efficient.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
It means the dude doesn't like OO programming. I'm neutral about it myself. While it does have some advantages, it also can be overused and slow a program down with overhead. Java and C# are 100% OO. C++ is a mix of OO and procedural and C is 100% procedural although you can still create and use synthetic objects with a little extra work. Since I mostly program in Java and C# I obviously use OO programming most of the time, but only becasue those languages only support OO. IMO C++ uses the best of both worlds and is the ideal programming language.
God is always good!
Technically this not correct. You can write object oriented Assembly language code if you want to.
God is always good!
I stand corrected and gladly so. I am not an expert in the area, but know just enough to get into trouble. ;-) I was simply trying to simplify it for people with minimal Computer Sci background.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
LOLOL
Our last hope for peace One of the greatest scam-bubbles...that never pops.
Our last hope for peace Thanks much for the help and explanation here...obviously, I should not have pinged in...it's too far over my knowledge base.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution Never be afraid to dive in. After all it's not like yukon posts here. :-)
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
;-)
It was literally impossible for those with soft-cyber chips in their head to imagine evil of the Korozhet.
I suspect that all those people left the stadium sometime prior to when comment #1 was posted... ;^) I never did learn OO. I did straight C and C++ came out well after I was working professionally with C. Ditto for Perl. I must confess to not knowing OO Perl. The Pinguinite software here is basically OO free, except for the 3rd party modules I've borrowed to make things work, and I'm not even much sure how those things work. Learning perl OO has been a low priority item for me for a lot of years now.
Pinguinite.com EcuadorTreasures.ec
LOL! My knowledge comes through the back door - I was forced, of necessity, to become an Applications Analyst and go-between between the users and the Programmers at a large Ship Repair Facility. So, I had to learn to translate user needs into something programmers could work with and translate what the programmers were telling me into language the users could understand. Later on I took a bunch of Computer Sci in College, but truthfully have never coded for a living.
"The difference between an honorable man and a moral man is that an honorable man regrets a discreditable act even when it has worked and he is in no danger of being caught." ~ H. L. Mencken
Mostly nobody has really gone anywhere, they just think they have... Wow, check out the big brain on Axenolith! Assembler is not for the weak of heart.
"'Schools is educationy' ; A message from our president."
Not at all, and while you can probably make a huge application run fast on a x86 machine with , it'll take you 30 years to write it in Assembler. Of course the advantages of higher level languages has always been quicker development time.
Pinguinite.com EcuadorTreasures.ec
You're gonna laugh, but Windows 98 on a 1997 Micron PII 350. I got screwed last year when MS discontinued updates and service, but not from the WIN standpoint, but from Turbo Tax following suit! I had to load it on a notebook I have and hold it up in the air to get a good enough nearby WiFi link to download the update! My philosophy on WinXX operating systems is to stay back a bunch of years, they always end up having all the bugs out of the old stuff right around when the next generation comes out :-) (that, and it just works great, and I'm a real "if it ain't broke don't fix it" kinda guy). The Micron is/was probably the single best PC ever manufactured in America. I bought as far out on the edge of the power curve as I could (the 100mhz bus had just come out) with the knowledge that I wouldn't have to replace it in 5 years, now it's going on 11! A few add ons (even stuff it wasn't supposed to digest) like a 10X CD burner, flat screen, external 40 gig WD drive and more memory. I finally replaced the cooling fan a few years back after having to take the stock one out sporadically for a year or so and oil the bearing until it just fell apart.
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
ARF! I'm like OI, I know enough to get in trouble :-) In the 90's I hung out on a pretty notorious Bay Area underground BBS system with a lot of bright hackers and phreakers that had WAY to much spare time on their hands. I mainly hung out for the political spew, but I made it a point to follow all the latest info, particularly from the virus writers. Anyone who wrote virus' then worth their salt wrote them in Assembly. I noodled enough to be able to follow the logic, but never had the time to get into coding hard core, it seems you either have to do it for a living or let it pass you by since it goes so fast...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
Link to Steve Gibsons Authoring Windows Applications In Assembly Language page...
Government blows and that which governs least blows least...
A lesson that I learned the hard way, although I did manage to escape the debacle that was WinME.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
#2. To: Tauzero (#0)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#3. To: lodwick, Tauzero (#1)
#4. To: Axenolith (#3)
Mostly nobody has really gone anywhere, they just
think charge us like they have...
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
#5. To: Axenolith (#3)
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
#6. To: lodwick (#4)
I've read that microsloth still has all the old buggy crap from years gone by in their 'latest' offerings.
#7. To: Axenolith, lodwick, tauzero (#3)
(Edited)
If you took most of the programs utilized in your average office and re-wrote them in say, assembly language, and cut all of the useless and redundant crap out that legacies over from each "new" incarnation you'd have software that would fit and run fine on an X86 architecture machine.
#8. To: lodwick (#1)
(Edited)
What does this mean?
#9. To: Original_Intent (#7)
Object Oriented Code is yet another step removed from that higher level language and is comprised of sets of instructions written in a higher level language. So it also adds, among other things, another level of translation required adding to the inefficiency.
#10. To: RickyJ (#9)
Technically this not correct. You can write object oriented Assembly language code if you want to.
#11. To: Tauzero (#0)
That implies multiple stack nestings and out-of-black-box side effects. That's the only example of metaphor run amok that I can deal with this week.
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#12. To: Axenolith (#3)
What North American Union? ~~~~~ Have you seen THIS yet? Pass it around...
#13. To: RickyJ, O_I, coders here (#8)
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
#14. To: lodwick (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: FOH (#11)
#16. To: Original_Intent (#10)
I was simply trying to simplify it for people with minimal Computer Sci background.
#17. To: Pinguinite (#16)
Learning perl OO has been a low priority item for me for a lot of years now.
#18. To: Axenolith (#3)
If you took most of the programs utilized in your average office and re-wrote them in say, assembly language, and cut all of the useless and redundant crap out that legacies over from each "new" incarnation you'd have software that would fit and run fine on an X86 architecture machine.
#19. To: HOUNDDAWG (#18)
Assembler is not for the weak of heart.
#20. To: lodwick (#5)
#21. To: HOUNDDAWG (#18)
Wow, check out the big brain on Axenolith!
#22. To: Tauzero, all (#0)
#23. To: Axenolith. the thread (#20)
My philosophy on WinXX operating systems is to stay back a bunch of years...
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest