| To: | scsh-news@martigny.ai.mit.edu |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Object IDs are good ( was: Object IDs are bad ) |
| From: | Chris.Bitmead@Alcatel.com.au (Chris Bitmead uid(x22068)) |
| Date: | 29 Apr 1997 03:28:24 GMT |
| Organization: | Alcatel Australia Limited |
| Reply-to: | Chris.Bitmead@Alcatel.com.au |
In article <5k2lt1$4f9@tools.bbnplanet.com> Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes: >"In each and every respect" must be understood in the context of the >information available. When we're programming, we are necessarily dealing >with abstractions and (often) approximations. The data type in the >programming language almost always doesn't include all the information >about the corresponding object in the real world. For instance, the IRS's >database doesn't have my fingerprints, DNA sequence, or complete quantum >state. Don't be so silly. The IRS has had your DNA and complete quantum state on file for quite a while now. They already know how you're going to fudge your 2003 tax return deductions based on complex mathematical models. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Object IDs are bad (was: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper), Peter Ludemann |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Lisp is neither (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot), Cyber Surfer |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Object IDs are good ( was: Object IDs are bad ), Patrick Doyle |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Object IDs are good ( was: Object IDs are bad ), Chris Bitmead uid(x22068) |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |