* WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? @ 1996-07-23 0:00 Andrea Lee 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Vladimir Alexiev ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Andrea Lee @ 1996-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Since posting our "Test Your Object IQ/Win a Free CD-ROM training course" several weeks ago, we've gotten over 600 responses, and to date, nobody has received a perfect score when taking the quiz for the first time! Based on your feedback, we've upgraded the quiz to provide you with the correct answers to questions missed. We've also added a shorter version. We urge everyone interested in OT to test your knowledge. It's fun, you'll learn something from the exercise, and you might win some free CBT courseware in the process. Taking the test is FREE and there are no obligations, so surf on over and give it a try!! The URL is: http://www.iconixsw.com The original (longer) quiz can be found at http://www.iconixsw.com/long-iq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-23 0:00 WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Andrea Lee @ 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Vladimir Alexiev 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jeremy L. Rosenberger ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Alexiev @ 1996-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I took the test and received a notification "you got 80%" (or somesuch). What good is that, if I don't know which questions I didn't answer right? Further more, the test is pretty much crap. To do well, one needs no more knowledge than knowing a bunch of acronyms. And sure enough, after taking the test I got a couple of unsolicited offers. I think this test is just a marketing ploy. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-23 0:00 WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Andrea Lee 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Vladimir Alexiev @ 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jeremy L. Rosenberger 1996-07-25 0:00 ` not ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Jeremy L. Rosenberger @ 1996-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Andrea Lee wrote: > WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? > > Since posting our "Test Your Object IQ/Win a Free CD-ROM training > course" several weeks ago, we've gotten over 600 responses, and to > date, nobody has received a perfect score when taking the quiz for > the first time! One possible explanation is that some of the questions require a little more esoteric knowledge than most OT professionals have. Another possible explanation is that the *true* object gurus don't have time to surf the Web and answer quizzes... Regards, Jeremy -- Jeremy L. Rosenberger mustang@henge.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-23 0:00 WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Andrea Lee 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Vladimir Alexiev 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jeremy L. Rosenberger @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` not 1996-07-26 0:00 ` John Pilgrim 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Bill Felton 1996-07-25 0:00 ` bbum 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Samuel S. Shuster 4 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: not @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 415 bytes --] On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:46:50 -0700, Andrea Lee <marketing@hollywood.cinenet.net> wrote: > >WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? They're all busy avoiding market ploys. Can�t you at least be a little more creative and inventive when making PR traps? And get your facts straight? CRC means Cyclic Redundancy Check - to 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the computer community - the rest being you guys. -BLADE- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` not @ 1996-07-26 0:00 ` John Pilgrim 1996-07-29 0:00 ` B. Anderson 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Bill Felton 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: John Pilgrim @ 1996-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <31f7dcd9.13047299@nntpserver.swip.net>, not@here.com wrote: > On Tue, 23 Jul 1996 14:46:50 -0700, Andrea Lee > <marketing@hollywood.cinenet.net> wrote: ... 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the computer community - > the rest being you guys. Assuming there are only two "guys" to whom you refer, in order to achieve the level of precision on the percentage you state, the "computer community" would have to have a population of N: (N-2)/N *100% = 99.999999999999999999999999999% (N-2)/N = 0.99999999999999999999999999999 N-2 = 0.99999999999999999999999999999*N -2 = 0.99999999999999999999999999999*N - N -2 = (0.99999999999999999999999999999 - 1) *N -2 = -0.00000000000000000000000000001*N -2 / -0.00000000000000000000000000001 = N 200000000000000000000000000000 = N or N = 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 = 2*10^29 Thus I assume you are envisioning every man, woman and child on the planet, along with all of the higher and even lower non-human animals all using computers in your "computer community." :-) Just messing with you! Peace! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-26 0:00 ` John Pilgrim @ 1996-07-29 0:00 ` B. Anderson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: B. Anderson @ 1996-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) John Pilgrim (pilgrim@muse.sfusd.k12.ca.us) wrote: : In article <31f7dcd9.13047299@nntpserver.swip.net>, not@here.com wrote: . . . : Thus I assume you are envisioning every man, woman and child on the : planet, along with all of the higher and even lower non-human animals all : using computers in your "computer community." Don't they? : :-) : Just messing with you! Oh - it's a joke. I vaguely remember these. Geekgrrl :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` not 1996-07-26 0:00 ` John Pilgrim @ 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Bill Felton 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Bill Felton @ 1996-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --] In <31f7dcd9.13047299@nntpserver.swip.net>, not@here.com writes: [snip] >Can�t you at least be a little more creative and inventive when making >PR traps? And get your facts straight? CRC means Cyclic Redundancy >Check - to 99.999999999999999999999999999% of the computer community - >the rest being you guys. And it means Chemical Rubber Company to 99.999999999999999999999% of the engineering community -- the rest being you guys. But I *do* agree with your response to the foolishness of this whole "OT Expert" marketing scam. Bill F. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-23 0:00 WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Andrea Lee ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-25 0:00 ` not @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` bbum 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Samuel S. Shuster 4 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: bbum @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Andrea, Maybe no-one has gotten 'em all right because it is about as valid and useful as, say, trivial pursuit. Or maybe it is because it is yet another annoying piece of ad-fluff cross-posted all over hell and back and all the truly clueful folks are ignoring it. BTW: CRC has classically been known as a Cyclic-Redundancy Check. A very simple algorithm for validating data... If someone recycled it into an OT term, then someone is coming from a point of ignorance (its not like CRC related technologies are either obsolete or uncommon). b.bum ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` bbum @ 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Thaddeus L. Olczyk @ 1996-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) bbum@friday.com wrote: > BTW: CRC has classically been known as a Cyclic-Redundancy Check. A > very simple algorithm for validating data... If someone recycled it into an > OT term, then someone is coming from a point of ignorance (its not like CRC > related technologies are either obsolete or uncommon). Yes, but CRC also stands for class-responsibility-collaborator. I also wouldn't call CRC a simple algorithm as it is defined as the remainder of a Z(2) polynomial (the string to be hashed ) mod a fixed prime Z(2) polynomial. -------------------------------- Thaddeus L. Olczyk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach 1996-07-25 0:00 ` !@?*$% ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Alf P. Steinbach @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote: > > bbum@friday.com wrote: > > BTW: CRC has classically been known as a Cyclic-Redundancy Check. A > > very simple algorithm for validating data... If someone recycled it into an > > OT term, then someone is coming from a point of ignorance (its not like CRC > > related technologies are either obsolete or uncommon). > Yes, but CRC also stands for class-responsibility-collaborator. > I also wouldn't call CRC a simple algorithm as it is defined > as the remainder of a Z(2) polynomial (the string to be hashed ) mod > a fixed prime Z(2) polynomial. This is reminiscent of ObjectMagazine, a trash publication I unfortunately thought looked interesting enough to buy. First, CRC *is* a simple algorithm -- there's nothing complicated in modulo division (I remember we had to implement the CRC algorithm as one of our assignments in a fundamental programming course back in 1982 or thereabouts). Second, I believe only managers are interested in "Class-Responsibility-Collaborator" cards -- fancy acronym, which they can impress other (low-level) managers with, but (1) it's so trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. - Alf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` !@?*$% 1996-07-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ron Crocker ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: !@?*$% @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > unfortunately thought looked interesting enough to buy. First, CRC > *is* a simple algorithm -- there's nothing complicated in modulo > division (I remember we had to implement the CRC algorithm as one Of course, CRC has a simple implementation, in hardware. It's a little more complicated in software, but not horrific. It's supposed to cheap enough to put in modems, network nodes, and any other telecommunications equipment with 1980s technology. The other part is that it has high probability of catching line noise. Not dropouts or any other kind of error. -- In mirrored maze he met the Mother, | smryan@netcom.com PO Box 1563 the lost and breathless, lonely brother. | Cupertino, California Both crone and child, now crying wild, | (xxx)xxx-xxxx 95015 her clinging clay will clothe and smother. | I don't use no smileys ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` !@?*$% @ 1996-07-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Kirby @ 1996-07-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <smryan-2507960149590001@10.0.2.15> smryan@netcom.com "!@?*$%" writes: ... >The other part is that it has high probability of catching line noise. Not >dropouts or any other kind of error. In fact it is really quite good at detecting those as well. CRC excells at localised hits but it is difficult to find a bad case for it. It is weaker when the running accumulator is 0 but that is rare as long as you don't start it with a zero value. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com ----------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach 1996-07-25 0:00 ` !@?*$% @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ron Crocker 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Frank Felix Debatin 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Warren Young 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ell 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 3 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ron Crocker @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <31F70013.7F13@online.no>, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps@online.no> wrote: >Second, I believe only managers are interested >in "Class-Responsibility-Collaborator" cards -- fancy acronym, which >they can impress other (low-level) managers with, but (1) it's so >trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless >because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. 1) Why? Simple metaphors are often powerful. 2) Define "action-centered" in this context. I don't understand what you're trying to tell me. What is the alternative ("passive-centered" :-)? -- Ron Crocker Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group (847) 632-4752 [FAX: (847) 632-6064] crocker@mot.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ron Crocker @ 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Frank Felix Debatin 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Warren Young 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Frank Felix Debatin @ 1996-07-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) CRC Cards is OT for children. Today's challenges are not mentioned in the test at all: as there are Distribution, Replication, Multi-Processing, Component Frameworks, Transaction Semantics ('all or nothing'), etc. On an abstract level you might want mention Design patterns, but I think that the hard problems can be found on the practical side. Frank Felix ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ron Crocker 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Frank Felix Debatin @ 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Warren Young 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Michael 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Warren Young @ 1996-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) crocker@tamarin.cig.mot.com (Ron Crocker) wrote: >>trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless >>because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. > >2) Define "action-centered" in this context. I don't understand what > you're trying to tell me. What is the alternative ("passive-centered" :-)? Action-centered design is usually associated with procedural programming, because it encourages this approach. Basically, it centers on the actions of the user, with each of the user's paths modeled in the software. Object-oriented programming can capture this sort of model, too, but doing so doesn't take advantage of the paradigm. For one thing, it tends to destroy reusability, because it ties the design to one specific domain. So, action-oriented design is to OOP what unstructured design was to procedural programming. A book I recently read points out that most people who use action-oriented design when using an O-O language tend to have roots in procedural programming. I don't know anything about CRC cards, but if it is action-oriented, it wouldn't surprise me that managers tend to like them. Most of these managers were probably promoted out of the programming ranks while they were still using a procedural language. Unfortunately, the different duties of a manager tend to separate them from the current technical happenings, so they're not as up-to-date as when they were programming. = Warren -- http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Warren Young @ 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Michael 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Michael @ 1996-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > >>trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless > >>because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. > > > >2) Define "action-centered" in this context. I don't understand what > > you're trying to tell me. What is the alternative ("passive-centered" :-)? > > > A book I recently read points out that most people who use > action-oriented design when using an O-O language tend to have roots > in procedural programming. I don't know anything about CRC cards, but > if it is action-oriented, it wouldn't surprise me that managers tend > to like them. Most of these managers were probably promoted out of > the programming ranks while they were still using a procedural > language. Unfortunately, the different duties of a manager tend to > separate them from the current technical happenings, so they're not as > up-to-date as when they were programming. Knowing the inherent risk of jumping into a thread mid-stream, here goes... The whole notion of CRC revolves around a single basic understanding: things (people, organizations, objects, systems, etc.) work together to accomplish tasks (business processes, workflows, Use Cases, methods, etc.). Granted, Responsibility-Based Design (RBD) focuses on behavior, but it is _always_ the behavior of things. Never, never, is this behavior "stand-alone" or strictly functional in nature. The hard-time RBD has been getting is very much related to our perception of "analysis" and "design". RBD splits-hairs in this area. From one perspective, RBD deals with the external reference of objects - i.e. what are they and what do they do? From another perspective it deals with the internal nature of the behavior - i.e. how are things accomplished. It is this internal view that defines the collaborations. > Action-centered design is usually associated with procedural > programming, because it encourages this approach. Basically, it > centers on the actions of the user, with each of the user's paths > modeled in the software. Object-oriented programming can capture this > sort of model, too, but doing so doesn't take advantage of the > paradigm. For one thing, it tends to destroy reusability, because it > ties the design to one specific domain. So, action-oriented design is > to OOP what unstructured design was to procedural programming. Horse s---!!!!! Where do I start? Leaving aside the red-hearing of "action-centered", let's switch our focus back to Responsibility-Based Design (which CRC is a short-hand mechanism). First, one doesn't have to fit in a CRC model into an OO paradigm anymore than one would have to fit a Fusion, Booch, OMT, or Use Case model into the OO paradigm. RDB _is_ OO! Period. Second, how does RBD destroy reusability? How does it tie one to a specific domain? There seems to be a misunderstanding that RBD is strictly de-compositional in nature. It's not. Granted, identifying and establishing collaborations may force us to "de-compose" a Responsibility's behavior, but this does not mean that we have to identify, define, and build the servicing objects from scratch! In may circumstances, the process is one of synthesis rather than decomposition. We have an existing set of objects (many, if not all, of which can be domian-independent) which supply a set of services (which themselves can be modelled using RBD - if so desired). We then build higher-level methods, tasks, workflows, or processes from these objects (we could also derive new objects from the existing ones, and synthesize from these). Finally, I come full circle. Objects and their behavior do not stand-alone. An object is useless unless it interacts with its environment. RBD allows us to define these interactions - in the same model we define the objects. And RBD is not the only way. The popularity of Use Cases is another example of our hunger to put objects into an overall perspective. (Altough one can view Use Cases as Responsibilities of the systme being analyzed, and the Actors as objects establishing collaborations with the system Responsibilities). +---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Michael E. Lee, II mlee@primenet.com Agincourt Engineering ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach 1996-07-25 0:00 ` !@?*$% 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ron Crocker @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ell 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ell @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Alf P. Steinbach (alfps@online.no) wrote: : This is reminiscent of ObjectMagazine, a trash publication I : unfortunately thought looked interesting enough to buy. If this pragmatist gave Object a chance he would see that leading pragmatists like RMartin publish in Object. Further, Object stands on its own as a periodical pushing forward OO theory and practice (including columns by Booch, and Jacobson). It's some pragmatists, and subjectivists who fail to see the value of Object. These types are so narrow that they can not get something out of Object, but as well read JOOP/ROAD, IEEE, and ACM publications. These are the same people who refuse to review OO fundamentals every now, and then. : First, CRC : *is* a simple algorithm -- there's nothing complicated in modulo : division (I remember we had to implement the CRC algorithm as one : of our assignments in a fundamental programming course back in : 1982 or thereabouts). Second, I believe only managers are interested : in "Class-Responsibility-Collaborator" cards -- fancy acronym, which : they can impress other (low-level) managers with, but (1) it's so : trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless : because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. I guess Wirfs-Brock and Weiner, it's creators are managers? Wrong! I guess the UML 3 are hopelessly stuck in a management mentality (i.e they can't program), as they advocate using CRC? Wrong! Elliott ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ell @ 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Brad Clawsie 3 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Thaddeus L. Olczyk @ 1996-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Alf P. Steinbach wrote: > This is reminiscent of ObjectMagazine, a trash publication I For the most part I asgree about Object, but I will point out that occasionally they do have a good article such as Robert Martin's and (sorry I foget the first name ) Newkirk's article. > unfortunately thought looked interesting enough to buy. First, CRC > *is* a simple algorithm -- there's nothing complicated in modulo > division (I remember we had to implement the CRC algorithm as one > of our assignments in a fundamental programming course back in > 1982 or thereabouts). Do you know why it's a good hash? Can you prove the polynomial you use is prime? If you go to 64 bits, can you provide your own polynomial? CRC is a simple algorithm to implement, implementation is not all there is to programming. >Second, I believe only managers are interested > in "Class-Responsibility-Collaborator" cards -- fancy acronym, which > they can impress other (low-level) managers with, but (1) it's so > trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* than useless > because it's a completely action-centered approach. Urgh. So? That means it is not a legitamte question on a OO quiz? There are many aspects to OO that I don't agree with. That does not mean they are not legitamate consepts ( as concepts). --------------------- Thaddeus L. Olczyk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk @ 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Brad Clawsie 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Brad Clawsie @ 1996-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >>Second, I believe only managers are interested >>in "Class-Responsibility-Collaborator" cards -- fancy acronym, >>which they can impress other (low-level) managers with, but (1) >>it's so trivial as to be completely useless, and (2) it's *worse* >>than useless because it's a completely action-centered approach. >>Urgh. > >So? That means it is not a legitamte question on a OO quiz? >There are many aspects to OO that I don't agree with. That does not >mean they are not legitamate consepts ( as concepts). Perhaps what the top poster was trying to convey is the notion that OO technology is completely overstudied. Go to any technical bookstore; the shelves are stuffed with mostly worthless OO material. Consultants (it would be irRATIONAL to name names) make a living coining new terms, complicating simple concepts, and generally over-extending the mileage they can get out of the OO brainshare. Brad -- Brad Clawsie brad@yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-25 0:00 ` bbum 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk @ 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Bob Kitzberger @ 1996-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) bbum@friday.com wrote: : BTW: CRC has classically been known as a Cyclic-Redundancy Check. A : very simple algorithm for validating data... If someone recycled it into an : OT term, then someone is coming from a point of ignorance (its not like CRC : related technologies are either obsolete or uncommon). Ah, but a true OO expert wouldn't have trouble dealing with the overloaded acronym :-) -- Bob Kitzberger Rational Software Corporation rlk@rational.com http://www.rational.com http://www.rational.com/pst/products/testmate.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? 1996-07-23 0:00 WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Andrea Lee ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1996-07-25 0:00 ` bbum @ 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Samuel S. Shuster 4 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Samuel S. Shuster @ 1996-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Andrea Lee <marketing@hollywood.cinenet.net> wrote: >WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? > >Since posting our "Test Your Object IQ/Win a Free CD-ROM training >course" [ yudda-yadda] Isn't it obvious? OT _experts_ don't need a Free Training Course... Give the CD to the WORST score! SFSF And So It Goes Sames ================================================================================ InfoBahn : sames@interaccess.com | Compuserve : 73323,2555 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you don't subscribe to the future, no one will even notice" thomas leylan ================================================================================ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-07-30 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1996-07-23 0:00 WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS??? Andrea Lee 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Vladimir Alexiev 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Jeremy L. Rosenberger 1996-07-25 0:00 ` not 1996-07-26 0:00 ` John Pilgrim 1996-07-29 0:00 ` B. Anderson 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Bill Felton 1996-07-25 0:00 ` bbum 1996-07-24 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Alf P. Steinbach 1996-07-25 0:00 ` !@?*$% 1996-07-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ron Crocker 1996-07-26 0:00 ` Frank Felix Debatin 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Warren Young 1996-07-30 0:00 ` Michael 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Ell 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Thaddeus L. Olczyk 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Brad Clawsie 1996-07-27 0:00 ` Bob Kitzberger 1996-07-25 0:00 ` Samuel S. Shuster
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox