Eppur si sugat

Peter-Henry Mander erlang@REDACTED
Wed May 28 08:46:41 CEST 2003

A bit of dictionary hacking leads me to believe joe was alluding to 
Galilei; 'Eppur si muove' 'Still the Earth moves'

"And yet it still sucks!" == Eppur si sugat

Am I right? Everyone else seems or pretends to know exactly what Joe said!

As for the debate, it looks as if you are all fighting over how to 
formalise the OO "method." Joe, from the FP camp desires to see the 
formal definition of OO to enable comparison with the formal definition 
of any FP language. Such definition _does_not_exist_ for OO, because it 
has grown out of day-to-day experience and "best practices" of 
programmers in the trenches who don't necessarily have time or the 
inclination to write a thesis about how they get results.

OO is no more than a bunch of good recipes for hackers.

And like recipes, there's always more than one way to get similar 
results. This doesn't mean that they're bad. I get results using OO 
methods when digging my trench. Unfortunately some marketing bright 
spark came up with a "OOh!" to "Wow!" management, and the rest is 
history. In this world the best technical solution doesn't even win on 
merit, and I think Joe (and I) get upset because of that.


Chris Pressey wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 10:40:00 +0200 (CEST)
> Joe Armstrong <joe@REDACTED> wrote:
>>   Eppur si sugat (was that right?)
> (Not sure - Google just gave me a blank look when I tried it...)

(interesting but marginally mathematical related stuff deleted.)

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list