Eppur si sugat
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