Philip Quaife 11 Oct 05
Whenever I present my opinion on a subject on this wiki, I try to provide the basis for that opinion. That is to say, I try to provide enough input for someone to provide a rational comment and thus engender a discussion.
In the debate on OO for the core, I have not found any comments made by those people supporting the above so that there can be a rational discussion on the merits.
I have started this page for those people to provide their basis for their viewpoint that:
TIP 257: Marketing
The TCT have made the statement that marketing forces are sufficient justification.
If we take that as the basis, then I propose that there are more deserving marketing issues for Tcl, namely:
None of the above are included or even distributed with the core. Since the TCT are the sponsers of tip257, they would have sponsered the above as TIP's if they had a genuine interest in marketing forces.
I propose:
CMcC Even if we stipulate that there are other facilities which would have marketing value to tcl, it does not follow that OO in core does not have marketing value to tcl. Therefore the argument is not specious.
There is a need for OO in the core
I need chocolate might as well be the phrase stated. There have not been any stated examples that show that Tcl would be 'better' or that development in Tcl would be 'easier' if OO was in the core.
I propose:
CMcC At the risk of being repetitive, tcllib modules contain many reimplemented OO systems, it would surely have been easier to implement the OO systems if Tcl core supported OO better, it would also have been easier to implement the modules themselves if Tcl had one or several preferred OO systems. QED.
One more time: The need for OO is demonstrated by the profusion of OO implementations. Whether the need is any more or less real because PWQ doesn't feel it is surely irrelevant. I don't even think it needs to be a demonstrable need, surely a widespread preference would be sufficient. After all, none of use need to use Tcl at all - we could use assembler, or PERL, or FORTRAN.
OO Programmes are Better
Lets provide a simple definition of better. If OO leads to less code, more stable applications, less effort for programmers, then we can generalise and say that overall we have a better situation. I would also say that adding features to a programme does not count as making it a better application. For example, FireFox is not better than Netscape because it has more features, it would be a better application if it took less code for the same features, was more reliable.
The problem is providing concrete examples to provide as a comparison. This is the best I can come up with as a valid example.
Both of the above applications have the same function. They take an abstract representation of the content of a document and create a formatted document for the purpose of viewing or printing. Both in the wider sense are still in development.
Lets just take one aspect as proof of the point.
If we compare these we find that there is more source code in the table layout code for Mozilla than there is in the entire TeX system!
Since bugs are proportional to the number of lines of code, TeX must be more reliable than Mozilla.
One of the tenents of OO is Code Reuse, we should see that as more features are added to Mozilla, the less code is required. Since all new features are based on existing code, bug fixes in the old code should result in less bug fixes being required in the new code. From an OO point of view, there should be less code in Gecko than is required for TeX macros. The reverse situation is true.
I propose that:
I propose from the above
CMcC Firstly, I don't know if anyone has advanced the argument 'OO programs are better than non-OO programs' as a justification for tip #257. Secondly, I don't think anyone could argue that it's impossible to write a bad OO program, or a good non-OO program - so producing a bad OO program and a good non-OO program means nothing in terms of the tip. This really is a straw man argument, and even the straw man seems to be clutching at straws.
aricb Dude, you are missing the point. The case for OO in the core is this:
Lots of people want OO in the core because they want OO in the core. They can probably articulate a reason or two, but it ultimately comes down to personal preference, which needn't be subjected to silly debates. In the end, those same people will still want OO in the core, and you still won't.
It seems silly to fight a TIP whose inclusion needn't affect the way you use Tcl. You can still go on writing procedural code if TIP 257 is accepted. If you're concerned about the impact of this TIP on the size of the Tcl executable, you still have the option of sticking to Tcl 8.4.
NEM Can we please stop using the wiki as a discussion forum? This page would be much better served as a thread on comp.lang.tcl. If you want to troll, Philip, then please, at least don't clutter up the wiki with new pages devoted to this nonsense.
CMcC I don't see that it matters, NEM. If PWQ has something eating him, I'd rather deal with it here in the open than leave it to fester.
I'm not impressed by the calibre of PWQ's counter-arguments, though, and this page isn't so much a place for reiteration of arguments in favour of Tip #257, as a platform to expose fallacious counter-arguments. I've created [OO Killed My Brother] so OOfended people can really vent. ... and I removed it again, to prevent this. The wiki is for storing info and finding it back later. The c.l.t forum is for discussion, it's at least as public as this place. jcw
PWQ 09 Oct 05, Hmmm. According to The purpose of this Wiki, this page fits the bill exactly.
As for trolling, I assume that anytime a viewpoint is expressed that is contrary to those in control, it ceases to be valid and becomes a troll, flame, et al.
As for calibre of counter arguments, At least I have an informed opinion on the subject, which is cleary (from the replys) more than the supporters of TIP257 have.
I posted a some points of view for the purpose of highlighting the inconsistant nature at which the TCT chooses to add to the core. It is possible that others agree. I see from the posts that no-one else cares. Fine, it's your choice. I don't ask you you alter your opinion , nor do I tell you what you can and can't post. In ten years time, these posts my be useful for purposes that no-one has yet thought of.