|
|
Posted by Tony Marston on 12/03/06 10:07
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4qOdnXfE6PHdDOzYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
<snip>
>> I suggest you learn to read. The article by Craig Larman clearly states
>> "In it, Parnas introduces information hiding. Many people have
>> misinterpretted this term as meaning data encapsulation, and some books
>> erroneously define the concepts as synonyms"
>> Do you see? "Encapsulation" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation".
>>
>
> Yes, I suggest you learn to read, Tony. Start with the real experts.
>
> You're just a stupid troll who looks around for someone to support his
> position. Read the authors I recommended.
>
> And no, I don't need to read any more of your "experts". I've read enough
> to see that you really don't understand what they're talking about.
>
>>
>>
>>>This is something on which EVERY expert agrees. But you fail to
>>>understand.
>>
>>
>> Not EVERY export. Some agree, some don't..
>>
>
> OK, every RECOGNIZED expert. That does not include the "experts" trolls
> like you recognize. Nor anyone who posts an essay or blog on the web.
Oh I see. Someone is not an expert unless you personally give them your seal
of approval. That is NOT how it works.
>>>And the same thing with Craig Larman's article. He agrees that
>>>encapsulation is good because it hides the design details. No one ever
>>>claimed it hid information.
>>>
>>>Wrong on both counts, Tony the Troll. Learn to read.
I suggest YOU learn to read. Encapsulation is NOT the same as data hiding.
>> "Encapsulation" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation". It is
>> supposed to hide the implemetation (code), not the information (data).
>>
>
> Encapsulation includes bot DATA AND CODE. How information is stored is
> part of the implementation, also. But that's what you can't get through
> your thick skull.
Encapsulation means "implementation hiding" not "information hiding". I do
not need private/protected variables to implement encapsulation.
> Maybe if you stood up and took a load off of your brain you could think
> more clearly. I'd suggest you take a shit but I'm afraid you'd loose what
> ever brains you might have.
>
>>
>>>>>This is in perfect agreement with Booch, Rumbaugh, Iverson and others.
>>>>>And a direct CONTRADICTION to troll Tony Marston.
And other experts, such as Martin Fowler.
>>>>>>>>>It's not worth getting into the argument. He's just a troll with
>>>>>>>>>delusions of competency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If everyone who disagrees with you is incompetent then the world is
>>>>>>>>full of idiots. Your opinion is not the only opinion, and there are
>>>>>>>>plenty of "experts" who have opposing views.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I disagree with a lot of competent people. It's YOU who are an
>>>>>>>incompetent troll. And you continue to prove it.
>>
>>
>> I see. I agree with some of the people that you disagree with, yet that
>> makes me a troll.
>>
>
> No, you're a troll because you come into a tread and start arguing your
> case.
That is what newsgroups are for, to expose different points of view.
> You refuse to read industry-recognized experts, but quote blogs by people
> who agree with you.
I read from a different set of experts, as do many others.
> And even when you post a page of someone who agrees with me and I point it
> out, you refute it and change the subject - finding another unknown
> "expert" to support your claim.
So you agree that there are others out there, expert or not, who share MY
opinion and which contradicts YOUR opinion.
> Also, I challenge you to find even ONE college level OO course in the U.S.
> which agrees with you. I bet you can't. So I guess all those professors
> are wrong, also.
If they are teaching that there is only one way to interpret what OO means,
and only one way to implement that interpretation, then they ARE wrong. Just
like those religious fanatics who preach that theirs is the ONE and ONLY
"true" faith.
> You are a troll because you have absolutely no idea of which you talk.
I have an open mind. I am prepared to listen to all arguments before I
decide which path to follow. And I choose NOT to follow your particular
path.
> You have no real experience outside of your little bubble, yet claim you
> are an expert.
I have never claimed to be an expert, unlike YOU. All I have done is pointed
out that other experts have opinions which differ from yours.
< snip>
> And you won't even read the industry experts. Your mantra is:
> "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts".
That's funny. I thought that was YOUR mantra.
<snip>
> The difference is my "bullshit" is supported by industry-recognized
> techniques. Yours is only supported by unknown people who are trying to
> get their names out.
So Martin Fowler is not a recognised expert?
< snip>
>>>Try working on an OO project with > 100 programmers. Learn how to do
>>>proper OO.
That's the problem. Different people have a totally different idea as to
what "proper OO" actually is. You are the arrogant one who keeps insisting
that YOUR opinion is the ONLY opinion worth having.
--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|