interactive help on the base object

S

Steven D'Aprano

What about whether the arrows should have solid heads, open heads,
barbed heads, double-barbed heads, or circles (filled or open)? Surely
you can't expect people to write decent programs when they can't even
draw the right kind of arrowhead?

You mock, and so you should, but I just thought I'd mention that there
are standards for this sort of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language

According to UML the type of arrow head does make a difference.
 
R

Roy Smith

What about whether the arrows should have solid heads, open heads,
barbed heads, double-barbed heads, or circles (filled or open)? Surely
you can't expect people to write decent programs when they can't even
draw the right kind of arrowhead?

You mock, and so you should, but I just thought I'd mention that there
are standards for this sort of thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language

According to UML the type of arrow head does make a difference.[/QUOTE]

Surely you realize that such a carefully constructed mock could not have
been generated without knowledge of the mockee? UML, like so many
things, started out with a few good ideas. Giving some structure to how
you sketch out classes on a whiteboard was a good idea. Sequence
diagrams, in particular, are a neat way to understand complicated
control flows.

I've even used UML tools to make sense of some huge pile of C++ code
that was tossed my way. Import the code, then start shoving boxes
around on the screen until some sort of logical structure emerges.

But, once things got to there being N different types of arrowheads,
each having some magical significance, they lost me.

PS: other things that fall into the "Some good basic ideas, but got
totally out of hand" include Agile, Six Sigma, and Perl.
 
M

Mark Lawrence

Well OOP on the python list is certainly on topic.

Interminable discussions about why redrawing the inheritance arrows
the other way round will save the world is OT (for me!)

One of the great joys of reading this list is how wonderfully OT it can
get. I have the right to make this statement as I started *THIS*
thread. Now what *WERE* we talking about? :)
 
I

Ian Kelly

While I'm very confident at this point that he is a crank, in the same
category as circle-squarers, cold fusion proponents, pi-is-a-rational-
number theorists, perpetual motion machine inventors, evolution or AGW
Denialists[1], and other such obsessive examples of Dunning-Kruger, I'm
not *totally* confident that he is a crank. Maybe he'll prove me wrong
and actually learn something. Who knows, maybe *I'll* learn something!

I would compare him more closely to the "Einstein was wrong" armchair
physics revisionists, myself.
 
R

rusi

One of the great joys of reading this list is how wonderfully OT it can
get. I have the right to make this statement as I started *THIS*
thread. Now what *WERE* we talking about? :)


My boy, I see that you are making progress towards your guru -- Nikos.

"You are spamming MY THREAD"
 
A

alex23

One of the great joys of reading this list is how wonderfully OT it can
get. I have the right to make this statement as I started *THIS*
thread. Now what *WERE* we talking about? :)

The God Object (or Higgs Object for the non-theists).
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
474,083
Messages
2,570,591
Members
47,212
Latest member
RobynWiley

Latest Threads

Top