Hi nospam,
You know that K.I.S.S. of yours? Well you should use it in your posts.
Because it's so hard to get those little nuggets of interesting and potentially
truthful wisdom out of the ramblings.
|| HEY COBOL still KEEP WORKING....it ain't broke so why fix it?
Exactly. Leave the fixing for when there's a clear need - like at DevBuzz.com
- they'll upgrade to .NET when there's a clear need for it (though that need may
well be 'the fun of it', and why not - it's their site).
|| Simplicity and reliability??????
|| HA HA HA HA HA HA
Are you laughing at your own experiences of implementing OOP?
|| GET REAL....Look at DotNetJunkies.com.....
|| lots of reliability and simplicity there when it's current status is what?
Sorry, I don't know the circumstances so I can't judge them.
|| And they are having PROBLEMS that requires for them to be down
|| and a TOTAL RE-WRITE of the engine.
Well, it may be problems, but it may be that there are other factors in their
decision. Without being a DotNetJunky it's hard to tell.
|| Those are the DAILY FACTS AND FAILURES OF OOP AND N-TIER
Not quite. It <may> be a failure of OOP/N-Tier but it <may> only a <partial>
failure or that may be a <minor factor> with there being other factors (which we
are not privy to, not being DNJs).
As for Daily Facts, I'm not sure what you mean. You're arguing from this
<one> instance to a <daily occurence> ?? 'Taint logical my friend.
|| and you chose to make excuses like it's common,
Hang on, hang on. I don't remember making any excuses - the OOP/N-Tier
thing is not where I've positioned my arguments at all so far. And when you say
'common' do you mean 'common' as in 'Daily Facts' common??
|| YET these same OOP weirdos point their fingers as COBOL....well
|| GUESS WHAT? COBOL IS STILL UP and RUNNING!!!!
Ha. We can agree!. Of course it is. Not as much as before and less in a
decade, perhaps. But still up and running.
|| > Come on nospam, you are missing an important debating tactic -
|| > strengthen your arguments by weakening the totalitarian statements.
||
|| Are you saying that I am not allowed to use ABSOLUTES?
Not at all. 'Allowed' is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you make a bad
choice when debating if you use absolutes. They make an easy target.
|| So are you saying, "There are no ABSOLUTES", just shades of GRAY"
Absolutely! There are only shades of grey.
|| ...Uhhhh so are you saying there is only ABSOLUTE GRAYS then?.....
|| see the OXYMORONIC statement that was just made?
I'm not sure that your wording is corerct there. There's a clearer oxymoron
in my answer above.
|| BUT let's get back to facts.
Facts?? In a nospam posting?? LOL. You're having me on!! ;-)) You joker, you!
|| You can't use VB6 in VB.NET, nor could you use Basic with VB6, or Pascal.
Ah - you mean self-evident facts. Almost like definitions.
|| In each one of these things, something was TOTALLY, TOTALLY
|| DIFFERENT and
See, now that's much, much better. I can agree completely there. Despite you
saying 'totally, totally different', you're only applying it to 'something'. Which leaves
plenty of other somethings to which it <doesn't> apply. So yes. I agree. Now we
can move on to discuss <which> something.
That's what I mean by absolute language. By not using it there, you allow
the discussion to move on. I can't logically say you're wrong because you aren't.
ps. I appreciate the tease with you using TOTALLY, TOTALLY. That'll
teach <me> to talk about absolutes!! ;-)
|| and all required a RE-WRITE.
'All' ?? Ah well, once step forward, one step back again. Sometimes a rewrite
is <required> and sometimes it's <desired> and other times it not an issue at all
and the system is <converted>. This last one happens far more than you seem to
be aware.
|| What happen when a totally NEW and GROUND BREAKING
|| hardware comes out? NOW YOU ARE really screwed
For sure. Sort of. The old does tend to suffer when the new comes along.
Look what the telephone did to letter writing. And TV to the cinema (and
cinema to the stage). Look what OOP has done to all those old languages.
There's lot's of old still hanging around, of course.
|| and that so called FUTURE saving are all FOR NOTHING.......
I'm not sure what this bit means.
|| Tah Dah!!!
|| ..that's the FACTS and HISTORY of an ever changing programming world
|| of code......RE-WRITE, RE-WRITE even when they SHOUT, RE-USE,
|| RE-USE........BUT GUESS what???
||
|| NOTHING GETS RE-USED...so why try when everything changes anyway?
I think perhaps you don't realise that even a TOTAL RE-WRITE still gets to
re-use. A total re-write doesn't necessarily mean start with a blank slate. It means
start with a fresh <look>, sure, and then incorporate as much of the old as is useful.
This might be nothing in some cases. In others it might be a lot. It's all a bit of a grey
area really. The .NET Framework is totally new? No. There are ideas from all over
the computing world and the Windows API is still underneath. New initiative - but
with as much re-use as possible.
|| OOP was made to be flexible and extensible because of the statement,
|| "The only thing we can be sure of is change."
Sounds fair. A bit marketing-speak, perhaps.
|| Well, GUESS, what else changes? The languages and technology itself!!!
|| DUHHHHHH!!!!!!
Ok. That's a given. I'm not sure why it surprises you.
|| SO there you go, even that OOP model is OUT THE DOOR cause it's not
|| compatible with the new hardware OR the new language.........
But this doesn't follow. It seems to me that these new languages incorporate
OOP not the other way round. and the hardware isn't an issue what with the
tendency to interpose abstraction layers.
Regards,
Fergus
--
(Please ignore this - there's a feud going on)
==================================================
Quote of the day
Herfried:
I don't need/want human interaction.
==================================================
