4 ms·

First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Obviously you are not going to go on at length about something and then "Oh yeah, and by the way, this is wha

First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Obviously you are not going to go on at length about something and then "Oh yeah, and by the way, this is what I meant by X. Gotcha!" Of course it is going to be the first thing you read.

dventimihasura 3y ago
> First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the article author that this was their intention? After all, the first thing you read in the article is a quote, but then there's a second quote later from a different person, which doesn't specifically address the first quote. Is that also a definition? No, in reality, you don't know the author's definition. Neither of us does, which is why we have to make an educated guess (an "inference"). You've guessed evidently that the author's definition is identical to Kay's. Well, let's consider your confidence around that guess. When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Finally, just as I'm not obliged to use your definition and you're not obliged to use mine, neither of us is obliged to use the blog article author's definition either. I certainly didn't agree to that, and there's good reason not to, which is that there are other people involved: the OOP critics. The article author accuses OOP critics of not understanding OOP. Personally, I think that gives us a reason to use THEIR definition of OOP, not the author's. That is, unless the author's argument "they don't understand OOP" is essentially "they're using the wrong definition of OOP." But then, since there is no right or wrong definition of OOP, that could only mean, "they're using a different definition of OOP from the one I'm using", which they're free to do. To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Increases. After all, it is ultimately about how people do not understand OOP. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. > To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?
  - dventimihasura 3y ago
    > Increases. After all, the remainder is about how people do not understand OOP. The author says this about "subtyping" and "inheritance", terms that do not appear in Kay's definition at the top: Another term that – while not technically necessary – is often associated with OOP is inheritance. Subtyping is not exclusive to OOP Evidently, subtyping and inheritance are not mutually exclusive of OOP and in fact often co-occur with OOP. The author certainly doesn't say that they in and of themselves--or "polymorphism" for that matter--causes people to misunderstand OOP (though they might misunderstand the terms themselves, which could cause confusion). You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is, and yet you're more confident that it doesn't include subtyping, inheritance, and polymorphism because the author mentioned them? Is that your final answer? > Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention? What is it you often say? Oh right: "Did you even read" what was written? In this case I didn't say: To sum up, the author's argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? Instead I said To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? The careful reader will note that I was asking about YOUR argument, not THE AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT. So no, I didn't get confirmation from the author that this was their intention. I was seeking confirmation from you that this was your intention. Well? Is it?
    - randomdata 3y ago
      > You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is And that's fine. We don't need to know the author's definition. That was deferred to Kay, which stands to reason as Kay defined the term. The author is focused on letting it be known that people, which includes the author himself, don't understand OOP. In fairness, Kay, who appears to be a person, has made it clear that not even he understands OOP. The only thing he knows for sure is that C++ is not it. Inheritance and polymorphism are core concepts in C++, so given that they were brought up, we have proof positive that the article was written from the perspective of not understanding OOP (in case the title wasn't already clear enough; the author could not have been much more explicit). > Instead I said – To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?" As I am the author, I already know the answer, but I wanted to hear the other side of the story. Is there some reason for your strange diversion to avoid answering the question? Are you afraid of what we might learn if you were to become earnest with us? Or did you just not bother reading again?

dventimihasura 3y ago

> First thing you read. That's where definitions go. Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the article author that this was their intention? After all, the first thing you read in the article is a quote, but then there's a second quote later from a different person, which doesn't specifically address the first quote. Is that also a definition? No, in reality, you don't know the author's definition. Neither of us does, which is why we have to make an educated guess (an "inference"). You've guessed evidently that the author's definition is identical to Kay's. Well, let's consider your confidence around that guess. When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Finally, just as I'm not obliged to use your definition and you're not obliged to use mine, neither of us is obliged to use the blog article author's definition either. I certainly didn't agree to that, and there's good reason not to, which is that there are other people involved: the OOP critics. The article author accuses OOP critics of not understanding OOP. Personally, I think that gives us a reason to use THEIR definition of OOP, not the author's. That is, unless the author's argument "they don't understand OOP" is essentially "they're using the wrong definition of OOP." But then, since there is no right or wrong definition of OOP, that could only mean, "they're using a different definition of OOP from the one I'm using", which they're free to do. To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you?

randomdata 3y ago
> When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confidence in your guess? Increases. After all, it is ultimately about how people do not understand OOP. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. > To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?
- dventimihasura 3y ago
  > Increases. After all, the remainder is about how people do not understand OOP. The author says this about "subtyping" and "inheritance", terms that do not appear in Kay's definition at the top: Another term that – while not technically necessary – is often associated with OOP is inheritance. Subtyping is not exclusive to OOP Evidently, subtyping and inheritance are not mutually exclusive of OOP and in fact often co-occur with OOP. The author certainly doesn't say that they in and of themselves--or "polymorphism" for that matter--causes people to misunderstand OOP (though they might misunderstand the terms themselves, which could cause confusion). You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is, and yet you're more confident that it doesn't include subtyping, inheritance, and polymorphism because the author mentioned them? Is that your final answer? > Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention? What is it you often say? Oh right: "Did you even read" what was written? In this case I didn't say: To sum up, the author's argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? Instead I said To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? The careful reader will note that I was asking about YOUR argument, not THE AUTHOR'S ARGUMENT. So no, I didn't get confirmation from the author that this was their intention. I was seeking confirmation from you that this was your intention. Well? Is it?
  - randomdata 3y ago
    > You and I don't know for sure what the author's definition of OOP is And that's fine. We don't need to know the author's definition. That was deferred to Kay, which stands to reason as Kay defined the term. The author is focused on letting it be known that people, which includes the author himself, don't understand OOP. In fairness, Kay, who appears to be a person, has made it clear that not even he understands OOP. The only thing he knows for sure is that C++ is not it. Inheritance and polymorphism are core concepts in C++, so given that they were brought up, we have proof positive that the article was written from the perspective of not understanding OOP (in case the title wasn't already clear enough; the author could not have been much more explicit). > Instead I said – To sum up, your argument essentially is, "you critics of OOP are not using the definition that I use." OK. Well, who asked you? To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?" As I am the author, I already know the answer, but I wanted to hear the other side of the story. Is there some reason for your strange diversion to avoid answering the question? Are you afraid of what we might learn if you were to become earnest with us? Or did you just not bother reading again?