WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Andrea Lee]

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/

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Jeremy L. Rosenberger]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Vladimir Alexiev]

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.

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Thaddeus L. Olczyk]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Ron Crocker]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Ell]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[bbum]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[!@?*$%]

> 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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[not]

[-- 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-

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Samuel S. Shuster]

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
================================================================================

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Alf P. Steinbach]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Bill Felton]

[-- 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.

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[John Pilgrim]

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!

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Frank Felix Debatin]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Thaddeus L. Olczyk]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Warren Young]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Brad Clawsie]

>>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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Bob Kitzberger]

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

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Lawrence Kirby]

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
-----------------------------------------

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[B. Anderson]

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 :-)

Re: WHERE ARE ALL THE OT EXPERTS???

[Michael]

> >>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