A successful algorithm to "solve problems" (aka methodology) would be able to generate itself as one of its many outputs.
To be more specific it would have to contain itself in order to tell you when and where it wasn't applicable. G�del already proved that a system cannot contain its own description - ever, anytime. Not even using FuseBox <g>. Funny how hope springs eternal... To modify a well known phrase or saying, "Those who know no mathematics are condemned to repeat it" Duncan Fenton -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Lynch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 December 2003 17:38 To: Cfug Dev List (E-mail) Subject: [ cf-dev ] [OT] OOP Overkill This was posted to a flash list I'm on with the thread title "OOP overkill?", hard to disagree with really.... "I think Gamma et al, summed it up nicely in their Design Patterns book: "Designing object-oriented software is hard and designing reusable object-oriented software is even harder." But the problem is not really with object-oriented programming and design. You can strike out the words object-oriented from that sentence and I think you end up with a simple truth: "Designing software is hard and designing reusable software is even harder." <snip> -- ** Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40lists.cfdeveloper.co.uk/ To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For human help, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
