I just reread my previous post and obviously I meant "big bucks" not "big
"Joseph M. Newcomer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
Herbert Simon got his Nobel Prize for recognizing that human decision
makers always make
decisions based on inadequate information. The term he used, I think this
was a 1947
paper, was "Satisficing". You get enough information to convince you that
you have a
basis for a decision, then you make the decision.
Going back to the original thread, the issue here is that he wants a
magical solution to a
problem which in fact does not have a specification, specifically, what
lifetime of a font object be? Because there are numerous, conflicting
based on a variety of criteria, Microsoft said "It's your decision". He
one-solution-fits-all solution to a problem which does not have one
solution, based on the
fact that implementing an appropriate solution for his problem domain
should be something
that Microsoft can automate in a way that means he doesn't have to worry
OOP concentrates on several issues, such as limiting scope of actions and
that were nightmares before the OOP paradigm. But it cannot solve all
problems when there is a plurality of solutions.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 07:50:45 -0700, "Tom Serface" <email@example.com> wrote:
Isn't that why we get the big bugs for figuring out how to do things?