Trivial Musings

I'm BACK

2006-05-25T14:19:00.000-05:00

Ok, been away from this for a long time, but I figure it's worth picking up again. I'm gonna be posting primarily about my WoW life, and periodically about anything else that really pisses me off. So. Yah. Just a heads up to the 0 people that actually read this!!

The Myth Of Object Oriented Programming

2005-04-08T12:53:00.000-05:00

As a programmer of about 10 years, and as a product of the object-oriented mania that was rampant during my educational and early professional years, I have a pretty decent understanding of, and practical experience with, object oriented design - both its underlying philosophy and the resultant object code of implementing said philosophy.

Pure object oriented programming (OOP or POOP if you will. . .) starts with the notion that everything is an object. While that may or may not be true, it's really quite boring - saying that everything is an object is really saying nothing at all. Creating multiple interfaces on a single type is a bad way of covering up a poor foundation. Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself.

Object oriented programmers, because of the paradigm by which they attempt to program, are in a constant struggle against the system. Everything is an object and therefore related, and yet we are constantly trying to decouple objects so that they may stand alone. Objects are supposed to hide complexity, and yet we are always striving to determine their semantics. Objects are supposed to allow for general programming, and yet they beg for (require even) a strong typing mechanism. Never-ending struggles like these have bred a variety of OOP gimics. We now have multiple inheritance, polymorphism, interfaces, casting, the whole nine yards, and yet it does nothing to solve the base problem of the system : NOT EVERYTHING IS AN OBJECT. An algorithm isn't an object. It has no state, requires no persistance, and has no lineage. Object oriented programming can't solve some very basic operations - like a Max() function. Try implementing a max function in OOP that takes any two objects of the same type and returns an object of that same type. It can't be done. Simple ideas like these make it evident that OOP has some flaws in it - flaws that are foundational to its ability to be serviceable for a broad variety of projects.

The inevitable result of object oriented programming is a massive dependancy web that can quite literally paralyze an organization.

These thoughts are a bit random and disorganized, but what can I say? I'm in a hurry. More later

New Computer

2005-04-08T12:50:00.000-05:00

Well I finally bit the bullet and bought my wife a new computer. She's been begging for one for quite a while - just not verbally (heh). I got her a Dell Dimension 8400 - it has the P4 640, 80GB SATA HD, DVD writer, 1GB 533MH DDR2 RAM, 17" Ultrasharp LCD, and a crummy but serviceable Radeon x300 SE (sucky edition) video card. I got it at a great price (read < 1000 dollars), and on top of that, it came TWO DAYS after I ordered it. I was happy about that. Now the wife and I can play world of warcraft together after the kids go to bed. I am constantly striving to come up with new and exciting ways of spending quality time with my wife. As an added bonus, as her way of thanking me for getting her a new computer, I get to take salsa dancing lessons with her. YAY!!

</sarcasm>

Blizzard

2005-03-30T12:16:00.000-06:00

Well.

I spent the day sick yesterday. I also spent the day a bit peeved. Blizzard's WoW servers were done 95% of the day, rendering me not only ill, but also bored.

Now, I understand that the realm servers are a technical marvel - I'm sure that the sheer quantities of bandwidth, processor usage, and hardware requirements alone could make for some pretty interesting schemes; that being said, blizzard sold a million and a half copies of the game at 50 bucks a pop, and they get between 13 and 15 dollars per month for each copy on top of that. Quick math shows 75M initial take + 21M per month in subscriptions. That's a pretty significant chunk of change, and one would like to believe that that much money could buy a technical staff that could do work WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE PLAYERS ARE SLEEPING. But alas, it is not to be.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what precisely Blizzard has set up. I have read rumors that they outsource a lot of stuff, which could surely account for delays and miscommunications. All I know is that I'm paying not only money, but also TIME for this game, and I'd definitely like to at least get the opportunity to play when I want, not when THEY want. I digress.

On to more pleasant topics. I am going to buy a new computer! :P Wife will be able to blog to her heart's content. Here is her blog.

Eh I guess that's all for now.

Funny but Sad

2005-03-28T10:13:00.000-06:00

I recently commented on a public forum (it was Nascar related); my comments were generally aimed at showing why a certain other contributor was rather ignorant, short sighted, and just plain wrong about his comments. While not directly insulting the individual, I certainly didn't mince words. To my utter lack of surprise, the majority of the responses directed my way all attacked my post for my grammar and vocabulary. Phrases such as 'big words', 'fancy sentences', or my personal favorite, 'thesaurus troll' all contributed to a hearty laugh on my part. It is a rare thing indeed when logical, concise, and in my opinion, clear writing is attacked as being too intelligent. It is difficult to put into writing the utter disdain I hold for those people, but rest assured, I will do my best. Cheers!

Local Internet Services

2005-03-11T09:08:00.000-06:00

Is it just me or do the Internet service providers in this area just SUCK. I have never seen 'broadband' be so narrow before. What's going on?

A couple of things

2005-03-10T11:10:00.000-06:00

1. Nascar is getting dumber by the year. Mexico? Hello? Mexico is a third world country. Nascar doesn't have room on its schedule for more races - and there are plenty of profit centers in America left to tap. This Mexico thing makes no sense.

2. World of Warcraft continues to amaze me. I think that if I was independantly wealthy and single, I would play this game 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. It's that good. Boy, would I be fat. Not that I'm not fat already, but I'd be REALLLL fat.

3. Snow in March? What's going on? In TX it'd be 80, sunny, and everything would be in full bloom. In IL, its 30, gray, wet, muddy, and snowy. I never thought TX would be 'ideal', but compared to this, I'm beginning to change my mind.

4. Free babysitting is worth any crappy weather I have to put up with. The wife agrees.

5. I am watching with glee as the Democratic party continues to show how out of step with mainstream America they are. The democratic influence in America continues to marginalize itself with rhetoric that only the most fanatical, out of touch, people can accept. I especially enjoy Ted Kennedy. Without folks like him, I don't know how the Republicans would win. :P

6. I don't necessarily miss playing Tradewars, but I do miss the domination aspect. There's just something fun about being significantly better at something than the majority.

That is all.

World of Warcraft Experiences

2005-03-04T09:41:00.000-06:00

Well, I've started playing World of Warcraft. All I can say is WoW. Parden the pun. The game is technical marvel. The level of thought, detail, and planning that obviously went into this game is amazing. I am hooked already, and am actively seeking to get my better half involved. She is resisting mightily, but I will prevail. After all - I'm a charmer!!

So far, the game has provided a level of interactivity that I had not expected to see in a game of this type for at least two to three more years. I really enjoy the team work aspect that is so ingrained into the environment. Playing on random parties has been a lot of fun, and leveling up with friends is even more fun. I anticipate that a lot of time will be spent playing this game - hopefully not to the detriment of other more important things. Like eating. Or sleeping.

I lost my wedding ring during the move and have been too lazy to buy another one. Now it's a daily struggle to beat off all the women that want me. :P :P

OMG I Can't Believe It

2005-03-02T15:41:00.000-06:00

We live in a house where the local cable company can't give us cable service (despite the fact that it appears that the prior occupants had cable service), and yet the stoopid local phone company (some smallish independantly run deal) can give us DSL (albeit for a price that I find to be somewhat high). What is this world coming to? Or more correctly, To what is this world coming?

I get to hook up the dsl this evening with any luck and get online to start playing World of Warcraft. My buddy who plays it seems to think very highly of the game. He'd better be right. ;P

I can't believe I'm programming in Visual Basic 6. It's embarrasing. Programming in VB6, as compared to a more elegant, powerful programming language like C++ is akin to playing with one of those Barbie computers. It kinda looks like the real thing. It makes some beeps and stuff. It has the word 'Email' on one of the buttons. But that's about as close as it comes to being a real computer. Visual Basic has the initial appearance of a real programming language. It has the notion of an object. It has the idea of types. It has the standard operators. It even has some 'complex' built-in data types. It all goes downhill from there though. You create a class and immediately you notice - there's no constructor; worse, there's no destructor. You then realize that your class can't be inherited, nor can it support any kind of polymorphism or overloading. One then thinks 'Ok, object oriented programming isn't this language's strongpoint, maybe I'll go the orthogonal route and try generic programming instead'. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! One would think wrong. There's nothing even close to any kind of generics implementation (like Templates in C++). I could go on and on, but it has become blindingly obvious that VB is a language best suited for amateurs. Yes, one can use a bunch of API's or inject ASM code directly, but not only is it dangerous, it requires a significant understanding of how VB organizes memory and converts data types. If one has the level of experience necessary to use the higher order 'functionality' of VB, one would not have chosen it in the first place. I digress on this subject. . . for now.

YUK

2005-02-28T15:56:00.000-06:00

Finally got everyone moved up here to Illinois. Illinois is quite possibly one of the worst states in which one might live. On top of the fact that it's a blue state, it's also a crummy-weather state. I will cease my complaints now before I get carried away.

My rental house kinda stinks. I can't get cable. I probably can't get DSL, and if I can, it's gonna cost me a lot more than it did in TX, and it will be slower (and most likely a lot less reliable). Why is this?

Working at my present job is similar in many ways to sitting through a literature class; rather boring, unchallenging, and worst of all, more or less worthless (other than the paycheck thing). No offense intended for those literature buffs out there.

Sigh.

Haves and Have-Nots

2005-02-18T15:59:00.000-06:00

One of the prime differentiators between programmers and non-programmers is that programmers tend to think in abstractions, or types, while non-programmers tend to think in concrete, often visible terms, or instances.

For this post, I shall refer to programmers in general as the 'haves', and non-programmers in general, as the 'have-nots'. I do this for obvious reasons, but for those who desire further enumeration, I shall list a few of my thoughts.

- Given a dilemma, often times programmers can arrive at the proper decision much quicker, and with much more intellectual acumen, than those who lack a programming background. Proof (for or against) regarding this statement is left as an excercise for the reader.

- Programmers, by profession, deal primarily in the field of logic, order, process, and relation; this immersion has the inevitable effect of altering the primary mechanism through which one interprets and acts upon events in life. Such alteration suggests that programmers have the inate capacity to make decisions based on reality, not emotion.

- Programmers, as a result of the rapid expansion of technology, have an obligation to never stop learning. This has obvious benefits, but they are accentuated by the fact that so many non-programmers lose this ambition as a result of lack of need.

It has been said (often by the have-nots) that the haves don't 'work in the real world'. Such a statement, while being obviously shortsighted, is often times intended to demean or reduce the significance of a contribution by a have. It is a statement that I find simultaneously humerous and unabashedly stupid. To one thinking such a thing, allow me to explain something via a series of questions, that has undoubtedly been overlooked.

- As this is being read, ask yourself 'did a have, or a have-not, write the software to allow me to read this?'

- Is it magic that allows the pointer on the screen to move in correlation to the random (and often-time confused) motion of your hand/wrist?

- How is it that the thermostat in your house knew that it was time to raise the temperature to 'occupied' levels?

- How is it that the computer in your car knew to adjust braking patterns when you were on ice, or when you slammed the brakes?

- How did that microwave know how to count down from two minutes to cook your cup of coffee?

I would submit to the have-nots, that in fact, the haves not only 'work in the real world' - the haves create the world in which the have-nots live. The haves not only have a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms of 'the real world' than the have-nots, the haves have a very large part in determining what 'real' is.

Coincidental Correlation

2005-02-18T15:28:00.000-06:00

I had a striking thought today, regarding inferences, and how they can be misleading. If I were to say 'I am going to McDonalds today; they have their fish sandwiches for $1.50 apiece', most people would naturally infer that I was going to order one or more fish sandwiches upon arrival at said restaurant, or at the very least that I was going to McDonalds, at least partially, as a result of the fact that fish sandwiches are $1.50 apiece. Such a conclusion would not be correct (ie Coincidental Correlation, or post hoc), which brings to light a point that I have been trying to express for quite some time; speculation is useless, often incorrect, and very often times malicious; therefore one should not make a habit of speculating, and should at all costs avoid speculating verbally or in public, lest one display their ignorance for all to see. I believe Abraham Lincoln stated something similar in premise (that, of course, does nothing to prove or enhance the proposition)

In other words - an appropriate response to many a conversation would be 'No comment'.