Re: What's the easiest and/or simplest part of Linux Kernel?
On 10/26/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 9:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> On 10/26/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuckle@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/25/2013 8:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>> Anyway, from an onlookers perspective you are being excessively
>>>> pedantic and hung up on different terms which are simply intended to
>>>> convey some meaning - and you have done so without saying _why_
>>>> 'machine' is a 'bad' term to use to describe the properties of an
>>>> 'object' in OOP.
>>>
>>> "Machine" is a bad term because it is not "Machine Oriented
>>> Programming". It is "Object Oriented Programming" - because it emulates
>>> real world objects - not machines.
Here I should have said thank you for providing your reason.
>> And a machine is not a real-world object?
>
> All machines are objects. But not all objects are machines.
I agree.
>> Are you saying that I should refrain from using the term "machine" as
>> an analogy to help explain OOP, because some "recognized experts" did
>> not use that term?
>
> Only if you don't want to look like an idiot. People who make up their
> own terms for something most of the rest of the world accept look that way.
Oh.
Dear me.
Guess I better just stick to Object then. Don't want to look like an
idiot. I shall submit myself to most of the rest of the world's
acceptance.
I guess I should appreciate that you are trying to stop some of us
from looking like idiots. There is possibly some worth in that
intention. I however be not tooo worried about others' think ... can
lead to certain - unproductive? - outcomes.
>> Besides, my point is not to attack "object" as being a useful term nor
>> to attack "object" as being the preferred/accepted/sanctioned term.
>> Can you see my point?
>
> Nope.
</shrug> Someone's loss?
>> My point was simply that "machine" is (in my opinion, and evidently in
>> the opinions of others), useful to help describe or explain OOP.
>
> As I said before - not all objects are machines.
True. Very true. I agree. I really do agree.
>> I did not ask you if machine was the best term. I humbly disagree with
>> you, if what you are saying is that "machine" is a bad term to help
>> describe or teach the "object" part of OOP to those trying to
>> understand it.
>
> Feel free to disagree. You're the one not using the commonly recognized
> terminology, not me.
I wrote an article back in the day for my university newsletter, using
a tree as an analogy to explain Objects - I did have much to learn,
but in hindsight, machine, or engine, would likely have been a better
analogy. I think I was trying to point out that _anything_ can be
modeled as an Object.
Anyway, as long as there's a good crucifixion under way for crimes
against terminology ... popcorn anyone?
>> Terminology junkies are welcome to their terms. Some on this list have
>> graciously ceded to _your_ preferred terms, in an endeavour to attempt
>> to maintain actual communication. I think that is a wise thing.
>
> I just go by what recognized experts say - not some yoyo who puts up a
> web page.
If you were to put some sincere effort in attempting to explain
something, and you used a term other than the primary sanctioned term,
I would not consider you a yoyo, nor stupid, etc, but would consider
your attempt genuine, to use additional terms to assist in the
listeners understanding of your point.
However, for an "encyclopaedia" I think that is a useful approach you
have. Say, I seem to remember there's a wikipedia page or two on OOP
that could really use a little of your expert love on this matter...
> If you want to use the correct terminology, you should be reading
> recognized experts in the field.
Each human, like it or not, is the authority regarding their own intentions.
This list is about communication, sometimes even related to Debian.
The job of experts, teachers, and those who wish to raise the quality
of discourse, ought be to discern and assist in the teasing out of the
communication intents of others on this list, preferably in a
supportive and encouraging manner.
Good luck
Zenaan
Reply to: