3 ms·

> 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

> 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
> 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." I did notice, indeed. But when I called myself "the author", I was referring to myself. Is it that you want me to call myself "you" instead? I don't think that works. It is not clear what you are trying to convey here. Obviously I was the author. Were you under the impression someone else authored the work in question? If so, who? If so, how? > As a critic of OOP Was "bingo" meant to a criticism? While this is a fun story that you have randomly decided to share, I fail to see the pertinence. > What do you believe your argument is? I have no beliefs on the matter. Logically, once a believe is formed, there is no longer value in discussing it. What more can be learned once you are certain of something? Only before beliefs are formed can you gain insights by talking to other people. Beliefs are built on discussion. Discussion always has to come first. But maybe you have some pet definition for "belief" that contradicts the common usage recorded in the dictionary?

randomdata 3y ago

> 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." I did notice, indeed. But when I called myself "the author", I was referring to myself. Is it that you want me to call myself "you" instead? I don't think that works. It is not clear what you are trying to convey here. Obviously I was the author. Were you under the impression someone else authored the work in question? If so, who? If so, how? > As a critic of OOP Was "bingo" meant to a criticism? While this is a fun story that you have randomly decided to share, I fail to see the pertinence. > What do you believe your argument is? I have no beliefs on the matter. Logically, once a believe is formed, there is no longer value in discussing it. What more can be learned once you are certain of something? Only before beliefs are formed can you gain insights by talking to other people. Beliefs are built on discussion. Discussion always has to come first. But maybe you have some pet definition for "belief" that contradicts the common usage recorded in the dictionary?