From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269339823 Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator) References: <34046FAD.52BFA1D7@eiffel.com> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: skule.ecf Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >In article doylep@ecf.toronto.edu (Patrick Doyle) writes: > >> >> I don't know if spec is more important than implementation, but >> >> that's another debate... >> > >> >No it is not "another debate" - it is simply my opinion, as noted. >> >> That's funny, I thought these newsgroups were for discussion. > >Firing loaded opinions around back and forth is not my idea of >"discussion". Especially given the lack of nuances capable in NG >text. If it's yours - have at it. Of course, you should expect to >encounter all the worthless flames and inflammatory rhetoric that goes >with it. Here's what I see: I stated an opinion and invited a debate. You put a stop to that, saying it is your opinion and not a debate. Yet in another thread, you said that simply stating opinion was a "waste of bandwidth". I can't for the life of me see why you're here at all, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and spare others from our diatribes. >> And this means we can't debate things any more? > >I don't see these "yes it is! no it isn't!" or (even worse) "you're a >FOOL for not using X because _I_ think it's COOL (BETTER, SUPERIOR, >whatever)" exchanges as particularly insightful or useful. It's only useless when opinions are not backed up by thoughtful arguments, as in your case above regarding the importance of interface versus implementation. To me, that's the waste of time. >> >Fine. And I do. And IMO, the evidence is there with enough authority >> >to convince me of this. >> >> And you'll make no effort to convince me I'm wrong? Then why >> to you participate in newsgroups? > >Because every once in a while (less lately due to a certain someone's >series of heavily x-posted inflammatory rhetoric) there are real >technical exchanges with real content that have real use. Trying to >convince someone simply for the sake of convincing or ramming your >view down their throats with the zeal of a religous fanatic is lame >and useless. But I'm here to have people try to convince me of their views. I think that's the best part. You learn the most from that sort of thing--not just mere information, but different ways to think. If you don't want to do me that favour, I can't possibly hold a grudge, but I still wonder why you're here. >Wanna do that? Go be a lawyer or politician. Best >thing is to simply present as much of the facts as you can in the best >light you can and let people make up their own minds. If at the end >of the day they want to use C++ and VB or Eiffel or Ada, or Lisp or >..., so be it. I agree completely. I've been asking you to back up your opinions (ie. "present the facts as you can in the best light you can"), and you don't want to. And that's fine. Just so we understand each other. So, in the hopes of sparing others from more wasted bandwidth, perhaps we should be more selective from now on as to which of each others' comments we respond to. -PD -- -- Patrick Doyle doylep@ecf.utoronto.ca