Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #15210 > unrolled thread

Single Class Object Model - new release

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Single Class Object Model - new release micha <kernmichel@yahoo.fr> - 2012-06-11 15:45 -0700
    Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-11 16:38 -0700
      Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-11 18:39 -0700
        Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-06-11 20:55 -0500
          Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-11 21:42 -0700
            Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-12 18:24 +0200
              Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-12 13:09 -0700
                Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-12 23:48 +0200
                  Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-13 01:12 -0700
                    Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-13 06:44 -0700
                      Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-13 15:22 -0700
                        Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-14 00:56 -0700
                          Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-14 03:24 -0700
                        Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-06-14 12:27 -0500
            Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-06-12 10:05 -0700
              Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-12 13:03 -0700
                Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-06-12 15:58 -0500
                  Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-13 02:08 -0700
                Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-06-12 23:33 +0200
                Re: Single Class Object Model - new release markspace <-@.> - 2012-06-12 15:15 -0700
                  Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-13 02:57 -0700
                    Re: Single Class Object Model - new release markspace <-@.> - 2012-06-13 08:26 -0700
                      Re: Single Class Object Model - new release micha <ludicite@gmail.com> - 2012-06-13 15:17 -0700
                        Re: Single Class Object Model - new release Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-06-13 19:06 -0700
                          Re: Single Class Object Model - new release markspace <-@.> - 2012-06-13 19:15 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#15239

On 13 juin, 00:15, markspace <-@.> wrote:
> On 6/12/2012 1:03 PM, micha wrote:
>
> > Yes it's inconsistent:
> > - because [] and ArrayList/Collections are 2 different ways to handle
> > vectors/lists (while there is only 1 in Python/Lisp/Perl
>
> Really?  In Perl, there's only one way to do something?  I admit I'm not
> an expert, but in my brief sojourn some 10 years ago I got the exact
> opposite impression.
>
> > - because int is a primitive type (like in procedural languages)
> > while Integer are Objects (the bypass to put integers in a Collection
> > in fact)
>
> So you invented a third way to represent these objects, which in your
> view is "more consistent?"
>
> I think you're playing fast and loose with the English language here.
> What you're saying is at least non-obvious, and at worst just isn't
> true.  You might want to back up these statements with some reasoned
> arguments if you want anyone to believe them.
>
> >    instead all entities in Scala/Smalltalk are Objects (even
> > functions), and scripting language (Python/Perl/PHP/Lisp) provide lazy
> > typing and are thus
>
> The problem I see with your invention is it's likely to be even worse
> than Java's solution.  It's likely to be very difficult to optimize for
> the JVM.  Languages like Python and Lisp which provide "unified
> primitives" also provide ways of optimizing them.   In my view the way
> to get Java programmers to understand these techniques is to discuss
> them directly, .not bolt a framework on to the language
>
> And honestly I think these concepts are well understood already.  It's
> pretty well known around here that C# provides excellent optimization of
> its built-in integers (which are objects like Java's Integer) and that
> those techniques could be ported to Java, if Oracle ever gets the
> resources to do it.  But in the meantime the suffering by Java
> developers is not too great, so we muddle on.

Hello markspace

- regarding Perl, I'm not an expert (not even a seasoned programmer)
but it seems the's only one entity to handle vectors (I'm not speaking
of hashtables here)
> So you invented a third way to represent these objects, which in your
> view is "more consistent?"
Nope it's not a third way to represent integers, it's away to
voluntarily lower the semantic level at buildtime in favor of a higher
semantic level at runtime. You may think of an application from 2
point of views: it's API and the semantic network of it's instances at
runtime. I feel that putting the focus on the semantic network of
instances (which seems not the common focus as developers are more
focused on the API and the code) would allow to work in a new and more
effective way. Of course this would require wysiwyg tools like
debuggers to visualize these runtime semantic networks. I guess that
this would allow 'on the fly refactoring' and that such an 'object
graph editor' would enhance the way we think and design software
components

> I think you're playing fast and loose with the English language here.
Yes my arguments are not so strong and are lacking samples for
illustration and 'proof of concept'. It's an early project (started a
month ago only), and I'm pretty excited by the potential that it
unfolds each day i work on it.. So I'm surely not objective about it.
What I know is that it grasps a bunch of issues that I've seen and
encountered for years ago and I'm almost sure these issues are still a
daily reality

> not bolt a framework on to the language
In fact, this project is a reaction against 'deep ultimate class
hierarchies' that I've seen promoted proudly by SW developers/
architects. If we get back from the start a model is at first a
scientific tool which tries to grasp essential properties/behavior of
a real system as a thinking tool to build a better understanding of
it. We know that a model is only a temporary view of our understanding
nd that it will be replaced by an improved model sooner or later.
That's why I dislike these  'deep ultimate class hierarchies' as they
force us to invest time to learn how to use them and once we invested
this time we are then very reticent to get rid of them even if we are
convinced that there is a better alternative

> The problem I see with your invention is it's likely to be even worse
> than Java's solution.  It's likely to be very difficult to optimize for
> the JVM.
I doubt it would be difficult to optimise for the JVM because
precisely the buildtime API is so lightweight !
In fact SCOM is a kind of 'regression': it's a kind a 'machine code
for semantic network of objects'.
I wrote it on top of Java because it's so popular and easy to use BUT
in fact I now think that it could be written on top of the JVM and
that it may become useful not in it's current state (which requires
writing Java code and compiling) but with 'wysiwyg' tools like an
'object graph editor', an approach similar at first glance with UML
modeler but wired in realtime to the runtime environment, so it would
be both an editor, a debugger and an object modeller

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15245

On 6/13/2012 2:57 AM, micha wrote:
> a reaction against 'deep ultimate class
> hierarchies' that I've seen promoted proudly by SW developers/
> architects.


See, this is where I think you're handing us a line of bullshit.

NO ONE is promoting anything other than the kind of strongly type 
libraries that Java uses.  There is no reaction against "deep ultimate" 
class libraries.  Your project has no reason to exist because your 
premise is deeply flawed.

Now if you'd like to show me this reaction by "developers," which has 
until now escaped my notice, fine;  I'll take a look.  But my honest 
opinion right now is that you're just some kind of kook.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15256

On 13 juin, 17:26, markspace <-@.> wrote:
> On 6/13/2012 2:57 AM, micha wrote:
>
> > a reaction against 'deep ultimate class
> > hierarchies' that I've seen promoted proudly by SW developers/
> > architects.
>
> See, this is where I think you're handing us a line of bullshit.
>
> NO ONE is promoting anything other than the kind of strongly type
> libraries that Java uses.  There is no reaction against "deep ultimate"
> class libraries.  Your project has no reason to exist because your
> premise is deeply flawed.
>
> Now if you'd like to show me this reaction by "developers," which has
> until now escaped my notice, fine;  I'll take a look.  But my honest
> opinion right now is that you're just some kind of kook.

you seem not very open neither a nice person, please keep your
opinions for yourself instead of agressing ppl who try to share
ideas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15264

micha wrote:
> 1markspace<-@.>  wrote:
>> micha wrote:
>>> a reaction against 'deep ultimate class
>>> hierarchies' that I've seen promoted proudly by SW developers/
>>> architects.
>>
>> See, this is where I think you're handing us a line of bullshit.
>>
>> NO ONE is promoting anything other than the kind of strongly type
>> libraries that Java uses.  There is no reaction against "deep ultimate"
>> class libraries.  Your project has no reason to exist because your
>> premise is deeply flawed.
>>
>> Now if you'd like to show me this reaction by "developers," which has
>> until now escaped my notice, fine;  I'll take a look.  But my honest
>> opinion right now is that you're just some kind of kook.
>
> you seem not very open neither a nice person, please keep your
> opinions for yourself instead of agressing ppl who try to share
> ideas

That isn't exactly a defense of your project.

You can't call someone "not nice" because they openly criticize your work - 
work that you openly presented for feedback.

He was "nice" in the sense that he gave you truth and delineated a way for you 
to provide objective evidence.

Instead of providing evidence, you call him names and ask him to censor his 
remarks.

That will lose you this audience.

If you honestly believe your idea is good enough for professional 
presentation, as here, you must avoid /ad hominem/ responses to criticisms *of 
your work*. Well, all right, he shouldn't have called ou a "kook", except that 
in a technical environment there is a particular definition. You can disprove 
kookhood by things like, well, defending your work instead of attacking your 
critics.

-- 
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Friz.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#15265

On 6/13/2012 7:06 PM, Lew wrote:
>  Well, all right, he shouldn't have called ou
> a "kook", except that in a technical environment there is a particular
> definition. You can disprove kookhood by things like, well, defending
> your work instead of attacking your critics.
>


Yes, he's right;  I was rude.  It's very frustrating to ask for detailed 
information and get glib blandishments that are practically a parody of 
themselves.

Still, if he'd rather takes his marbles and go home rather than actually 
answer questions, then I suppose that is for the best.  I noticed he did 
the same to Robert, and he was not rude at all, that I could see.  The 
OP's probably frustrated as well.  Probably best to end what little 
conversation there was before it devolves into something worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web