4 ms·

A distinction without a difference; what is the difference between failure of the paradigm and failure to implement the paradigm? If it hasn’t been implemented

A distinction without a difference; what is the difference between failure of the paradigm and failure to implement the paradigm? If it hasn’t been implemented after 4-5 decades then maybe the idea just isn’t workable.

mpweiher 4y ago
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" -- Lord Kelvin, 1895
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  And if, in 1895, you said "flying machines have failed" that statement would be 100% accurate. And if you suggested that a business should be built on the failed flying machines, you'd be laughed out of the room.
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    Which is why, in 2023, I wrote: "So while OOP has delivered a lot it actually has failed to deliver on one of its core promises." And of course Lord Kelvin, in 1985, didn't say "Flying machines have failed" he said "Flying machines are impossible". And you, in 2023: > If it hasn’t been implemented after 4-5 decades then maybe the idea just isn’t workable. Maybe. But also maybe not. First of all, it's not exactly like OO hasn't achieved anything in 4-5 decades. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just look around you! Or maybe let's see what Fred Brooks of "No Silver Bullet" fame had to say: "A burst of papers came and said “Oh yes, there is a silver bullet, and here it is, this is mine!” When ‘96 came and I was writing the new edition of The Mythical Man-Month and did a chapter on that, there was not yet a 10 fold improvement in productivity in software engineering. I would question whether there has been any single technique that has done so since. If so, I would guess it is object oriented programming, as a matter of fact." https://www.infoq.com/articles/No-Silver-Bullet-Summary/ https://www.infoq.com/articles/No-Silver-Bullet-Summary/ So for Fred Brooks, the one thing closest to an actual Silver Bullet according to his definition in software engineering was, drumroll, object oriented programming. Pretty impressive for an "unworkable" idea. Secondly, it has managed to achieve all of that while not even being fully developed yet! And I am not the only one saying that. Alan’s famous quip “I made up the term ‘object-oriented’, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind” was followed immediately with the far less quoted “The important thing here is I have many of the same feelings about Smalltalk”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY&t=633s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY&t=633s That was 1997, and arguably we haven't really made progress in that area since then, and even regressed. Sad.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  this is a famous quote that illustrates that this very famous scientist must have been mentally impaired at the time. did he look around? birds? paper planes? thrown beermats? kites?
  - mpweiher 4y ago
    machines
    - zabzonk 4y ago
      well, a bird is a machine, as are we. a modern glider is a machine (and Lilienthal had flown prior to the quote). you need to specify what you think or don't think is a machine. as kelvin should have done.
      - mpweiher 4y ago
        > bird "The term is commonly applied to artificial devices,.." It seems he figured out that his audience was smart enough to figure out he wasn't deviating from common usage. And was mostly right. > Lilienthal Unpowered. "A machine is a physical system using power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine Cheers.
        zabzonk 4y ago
        also from same paragraph: "but also to natural biological macromolecules, such as molecular machines. Machines can be driven by animals and people, by natural forces such as wind and water, and by chemical, thermal, or electrical power"
        mpweiher 4y ago
        commonly Bye now.

mpweiher 4y ago

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" -- Lord Kelvin, 1895

jeremyjh 4y ago
And if, in 1895, you said "flying machines have failed" that statement would be 100% accurate. And if you suggested that a business should be built on the failed flying machines, you'd be laughed out of the room.
- mpweiher 4y ago
  Which is why, in 2023, I wrote: "So while OOP has delivered a lot it actually has failed to deliver on one of its core promises." And of course Lord Kelvin, in 1985, didn't say "Flying machines have failed" he said "Flying machines are impossible". And you, in 2023: > If it hasn’t been implemented after 4-5 decades then maybe the idea just isn’t workable. Maybe. But also maybe not. First of all, it's not exactly like OO hasn't achieved anything in 4-5 decades. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just look around you! Or maybe let's see what Fred Brooks of "No Silver Bullet" fame had to say: "A burst of papers came and said “Oh yes, there is a silver bullet, and here it is, this is mine!” When ‘96 came and I was writing the new edition of The Mythical Man-Month and did a chapter on that, there was not yet a 10 fold improvement in productivity in software engineering. I would question whether there has been any single technique that has done so since. If so, I would guess it is object oriented programming, as a matter of fact." https://www.infoq.com/articles/No-Silver-Bullet-Summary/ https://www.infoq.com/articles/No-Silver-Bullet-Summary/ So for Fred Brooks, the one thing closest to an actual Silver Bullet according to his definition in software engineering was, drumroll, object oriented programming. Pretty impressive for an "unworkable" idea. Secondly, it has managed to achieve all of that while not even being fully developed yet! And I am not the only one saying that. Alan’s famous quip “I made up the term ‘object-oriented’, and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind” was followed immediately with the far less quoted “The important thing here is I have many of the same feelings about Smalltalk”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY&t=633s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY&t=633s That was 1997, and arguably we haven't really made progress in that area since then, and even regressed. Sad.
zabzonk 4y ago
this is a famous quote that illustrates that this very famous scientist must have been mentally impaired at the time. did he look around? birds? paper planes? thrown beermats? kites?
- mpweiher 4y ago
  machines
  - zabzonk 4y ago
    well, a bird is a machine, as are we. a modern glider is a machine (and Lilienthal had flown prior to the quote). you need to specify what you think or don't think is a machine. as kelvin should have done.
    - mpweiher 4y ago
      > bird "The term is commonly applied to artificial devices,.." It seems he figured out that his audience was smart enough to figure out he wasn't deviating from common usage. And was mostly right. > Lilienthal Unpowered. "A machine is a physical system using power to apply forces and control movement to perform an action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine Cheers.
      - zabzonk 4y ago
        also from same paragraph: "but also to natural biological macromolecules, such as molecular machines. Machines can be driven by animals and people, by natural forces such as wind and water, and by chemical, thermal, or electrical power"
        mpweiher 4y ago
        commonly Bye now.