Re: [colorforth] objects and forth

[Panthera Altaica <draltaica@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- On Mon, 2/2/09, David J. Goehrig <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Oh I agree with this to an extent.  This is true of the
> Java crowd for sure.  Not all OO-ers fully believe in this
> nonsense though.

"only a little bit peregnent"?


> Well, most Smalltalkers tend to avoid this black box idea. 
> They are generally more than willing to go in and modify a
> low level class like Object just to make their idiom work
> correctly.  For example it is standard practice to add a
> method like:
> 
> 	isMyClass
> 		^ false
> 
> to the root level Object class, and then in your own class
> implement the corresponding method
> 
> 	isMyClass
> 		^ true
> 
> Just so you can test if an object is a member of your class
> or not, without triggering the debugger at runtime.  


What does OO call 'comefrom'?

http://www.tads.org/t3doc/doc/sysman/icext.htm


> general concept isn't so much mandatory ignorance, but
> rather results in a culture of willful ignorance, because

Only Lebri Software people use OO?

"Naturally you want to treat these modules as “black boxes” and not make any changes to them. Treating each module as a unit avoids the need to learn the internals, and avoids the risk of introducing errors in work  which may have been well tested by use in dozens of different projects. In addition, the developers may only want to release running modules, not the source."

THE resion OO is so populer that that it easely allows you to 'weld the hood closed'

> one doesn't need to think about what they're doing. 
> It doesn't actually have to be that way.

 
If 'one doesn't need to think about what they're doing' results in 'a culture of willful ignorance' and 'a culture of willful ignorance' results in 'a culture of mandatory ignorance' then it actually does have to be that way.


> 
> That said, when you jump through hoops just to make your
> idiom work, your idiom is probably broken.  But hey,
> that's why the Gang of Four wrote the Patterns book, to
> describe all the different hoops they typically encounter.
> 
> > And you are surprized that they all idiots teaching
> others how to be idiots?
> 
> Actually, judging by one of my friend's experiences as
> an associate professor at one of the best Comp Sci
> Universities in the country (a top 20 school for sure),
> he's got PhD students who don't know how to open
> files off a CD.  So I'd avoid saying we've got
> idiots teaching idiots, just that we have CompSci people who

What 'Best Universities in the country' lets someone with out a highschool level education into there PhD programme?


> In my opinion, the structure of academia is to blame for
> decline in programming.  

Unfortunatly it's not just 'The Ph.D. Octopus'(http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/octopus.html)  It's the INTIRE education(sic) system. 
We (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0vQAdDFGMA  around 50-51 minutes in he talks about tinkering.) 

We have an anti-learning culture. The education system job is to produce people that only "participates in reason so far as to apprehend it but not to possess it"

KidSim:Programming Agents without a Programming Language
"We have come to the conclusion that since all previous languages have been unsuccessful by the criterion described here, /language itself is the problem/. It does not matter what the syntax is. Learning another language is difficult for most people. The solution is to get rid of the programming language."


We have a culture that engenders a
> whole range of behaviors and thought processes that are
> contrary to developing a fundamental understanding of actual
> reality. 

"Reality" is only what people have "Realized"
"Plato's heaven" is not "Reality"

As truTV says, "Not Reality. Actuality."


http://www.crcsite.org/actuality.htm








---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com