Posted by Tony Marston on 12/02/06 12:01

"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:WfCdnZm7SJgKuO3YnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Tony Marston wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:rNidnZrE3O5fSvPYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Tony Marston wrote:
>>
>> < snip>
>>
>>>>>>>Tony and I have been into this before. He breaks into conversations
>>>>>>>trying to spout his version of OO, with a few blogs from people no
>>>>>>>one every heard of to back him up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see. So in your opinion Martin Fowler is of of these "people no one
>>>>>>ever heard of "? He says, like I do, that "Encapsulation Wasn't Meant
>>>>>>To Mean Data Hiding" at
>>>>>>http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Are you saying that YOU are more of an expert than Martin Fowler? What
>>>>>>arrogance!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, I'm saying Booch, Rumbaugh and Jacobson, among others, are more
>>>>>expert than Martin Fowler. And yes, I've heard of him.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you're not quoting Martin Fowler. You're quoting Keith Ray's
>>>>>INTERPRETATION if Martin Fowler.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you bothered to follow the link to Martn Fowler's page at
>>>>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/GetterEradicator.html you would see in
>>>>paragraph 4 tha it is a direct quotation, not an interpretation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, and did you actually read that page? To quote from Martin Fowler:
>>>
>>>"For me, the point of encapsulation isn't really about hiding the data,
>>>but in hiding design decisions, particularly in areas where those
>>>decisions may have to change. The internal data representation is one
>>>example of this..."
>>
>>
>> The full quote is "The internal data representation is one example of
>> this, ** but not the only one and not always the best one.**" The
>> significant point is the sentence which reads "point of encapsulation
>> isn't really about hiding the data, but in hiding design decisions". If
>> you follow the link he provides to
>> http://www.craiglarman.com/articles/The%20Importance%20of%20Being%20Closed%20-%20Larman%20-%20IEEE%20Software.pdf
>> by Craig Larman there is an interesting chapter with the title
>> "Information hiding is PV, not data encapsulation". The hiding of design
>> decisions was supposed to mean hiding the code which manipulates the
>> data, not the data itself.
>>
>> As I have said several times, and quoted from other resources,
>> encapsulation is NOT about INFORMATION hiding but about IMPLEMENTATION
>> hiding. There is a subtle difference which you fail to grasp.
>>
>
> No, the point YOU fail to grasp, which ALL the experts, including Martin
> Fowler, is the actual variables used are PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.
>
> I never said you should hide the information. But you should hide HOW THE
> INFORMATION IS STORED. That is one of the DESIGN DECISIONS he is talking
> about.

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".


> This is something on which EVERY expert agrees. But you fail to
> understand.

Not EVERY export. Some agree, some don't..

> 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.

"Encapsulation" is not supposed to mean "data encapsulation". It is supposed
to hide the implemetation (code), not the information (data).

>>
>>>This is in perfect agreement with Booch, Rumbaugh, Iverson and others.
>>>And a direct CONTRADICTION to troll Tony Marston.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>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.

>>>>>Try these - with direct quotes from recognized experts, and examples:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.research.umbc.edu/~tarr/dp/lectures/OOPrinciples-2pp.pdf
>>>>>http://www.nnwj.de/encapsulation.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Or better yet, read the real books by these authors.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I know you won't, because you disagree with what they say, and
>>>>>don't want to burst your little bubble.
>>>>>
>>>>>Troll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whether you like it or not there is no such thing as a single opinion as
>>>>to what OOP is and is not, and there are multiple interpretations as to
>>>>the real meaning of encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism,
>>>>implementation hiding and information hiding. Just because you quote
>>>>sources who agree with you does not mean you are right and everybody
>>>>else is wrong. Here are sources with the opinion that "Encapsulation is
>>>>NOT information hiding":
>>>>
>>>>http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/2006/02/22/
>>>>http://martinfowler.com/bliki/GetterEradicator.html
>>>>http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-05-2001/jw-0518-encapsulation.html?page=1
>>>>http://www.itmweb.com/essay550.htm
>>>>http://nat.truemesh.com/archives/000498.html
>>>>
>>>>The world is full of different opinions, so who is to say which ones are
>>>>right and which ones are wrong?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yea, and some, like yours, troll, are just wrong.
>>
>>
>> In your opinion they are wrong, but I do not value your opinion.
>>
>
> I really don't give a flying fuck if you or any other troll values my
> opinion, Tony. Your idiocy is beyond comprehension.
>>
>>>Read the experts I've mentioned several times. You might actually learn
>>>something.
>>>
>>>But I know you won't. Like all trolls you know everything and anyone who
>>>disagrees with you is wrong - no matter how much of a recognized expert
>>>he is.
>>
>>
>> All the "experts" in the world do not agree. "My" experts disagree with
>> "your" experts. Just because I, and many others, disagree with your
>> opinion does not make me/us wrong.
>>
>
> Where did your "experts" get their training? The great Tony Martson
> School of Bullshit?
>
> These are experts recognized by the INDUSTRY - not me, not Tony Marston.
> They are recognized by top programmers, university professors, industry
> groups, publishers and more.
>
> And quite frankly, troll Tony Marston's opinion on who an expert is isn't
> important.

Neither is yours.

>>>Go and crawl back into your hole, troll. And take your delusions of
>>>competence with you.
>>
>>
>> Typical reaction of a moron. When you start losing the argument out come
>> the insults.
>>
>
> Yep, you've labeled yourself for sure. I am not "losing the argument".
> Rather, you are just too thick-headed and stubborn to listen to the real
> experts in the field.

As I keep on saying, there is no such thing as one set of experts with whom
EVERYBODY agrees, just as there is no such thing as one programming style
with which EVEYBODY agrees.In every walk of life there are different
opinions, and all I am doing is expressing an opinion which isdifferent from
yours.

> You've done a little programming in one (or maybe even two) languages.

I have done a lot of programming in many languages.

> You think reading some of the crap on the Internet makes you an expert in
> the matter.

Just as the crap you read makes you an expert.

> Let me clue you in, Tony. You are far from an expert in anything. A web
> site with some copied (and incorrect)

It is only your opinion that it is incorect. Other people do not think so.

> information does not make you an expert. Posting your bullshit in this
> and other newsgroups does not make you an expert.

Posting your bullsh*t does not make you an expert either.

> And quoting people no one ever heard of does not make you an expert.

Just because you haven't heard of them does no mean that they do not exist,
nor hat their opinions are worthless.

> Try working on an OO project with > 100 programmers. Learn how to do
> proper OO.

I once worked on a project with a team of so-called OO "experts", and it was
the worst technical disaster of my entire career. They were so full of their
fancy ideas they coud not tell which way was up. They were so incompetent
they could not find their own backsides in the dark if you let them use both
hands and gave them a map and compass.

> Then spend another 5-10 years or so working your way up in the OOAD
> field, until you're managing projects like the one above. Then your
> opinions might count. I've done all of that over the years.
>
> Or even read the books I mentioned by those authors.
>
> But I know you won't. Like all trolls, you're just plain stupid, and are
> totally afraid the bullshit you've been espousing might be wrong.
>
> Go away, troll.

No, I won't. I will keep contradicting your opinions until hell freezes over
for the simple reason that I, and others, do not agree with your opinions.

--
Tony Marston
http://www.tonymarston.net
http://www.radicore.org

[Back to original message]