4 ms·

> When the author discusses other topics not included in that definition, like inheritance and polymorphism, does that tend to increase or decrease your confide

> 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
    > We don't need to know the author's definition. That was deferred to Kay We don't know that it was deferred to Kay. You just assumed that it was. > To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?" I apologize. How foolish of me to assume you would notice that I assiduously avoided doing anything other than to refer to you by "you" and to refer to the blog article's author as "the author." Let me rephrase. As a critic of OOP, my definition of OOP includes inheritance, polymorphism, and classes. An example of a programming language that fits this definition is Java. While my criticisms don't depend on those properties, nevertheless that is the definition that I personally use. Now, based on your comments, I believe your argument is: as a critic of OOP you are not using the defintion of OOP that I use That's what I believe your argument is, but I'm interested in your beliefs about your own argument. What do you believe your argument is?
    - randomdata 3y ago

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
  > We don't need to know the author's definition. That was deferred to Kay We don't know that it was deferred to Kay. You just assumed that it was. > To which I asked: "Says who? You? Did you get a confirmation from the author that this was their intention?" I apologize. How foolish of me to assume you would notice that I assiduously avoided doing anything other than to refer to you by "you" and to refer to the blog article's author as "the author." Let me rephrase. As a critic of OOP, my definition of OOP includes inheritance, polymorphism, and classes. An example of a programming language that fits this definition is Java. While my criticisms don't depend on those properties, nevertheless that is the definition that I personally use. Now, based on your comments, I believe your argument is: as a critic of OOP you are not using the defintion of OOP that I use That's what I believe your argument is, but I'm interested in your beliefs about your own argument. What do you believe your argument is?
  - randomdata 3y ago