User talk:TakuyaMurata

/SandBox

/old talk until feb 21 03 | /old talk 2[?] | /old talk 3 | /old talk 4 | /old talk 5

---

About English, you sure in a computer is more correct than on the computer? To me, on the computer sounds natural because we are talking about computer as a technology not individual persoanl computers such as yours or mime. But I am not sure. I don't mean to dispute but I am just curious. -- Taku 14:34 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Where did I write "in a computer?" :-) Evercat 14:36 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Sorry actually on a computer. /w/wiki.phtml?title=Negative_and_non-negative_numbers&diff=946443&oldid=946395

Um. "On a computer" seems correct to me. Or "in computers". But "on the computer" seems to be talking about a specific computer. Evercat 14:41 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I know what you mean to me on a computer sounds talking about an individual computer. I want to mean by on the computer a computer technology general. Calculators or video game consoles are not usually considered computers but they sure include computer technologies such as presentation of integers. Besides, Google shows both on the computer and on a computer are common. -- Taku 14:45 22 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, Taku. I am fowarding Nanshu's question here. I wish a Japanese wikipedian can provide other perspectives of it.

Hey, what is "Yoshihito Taisho"? --Nanshu

It's apparently a redirect from Wikipedia:Images with missing articles. IMO Taisho Emperor was never referred to as Yoshihito Taisho. I'll forward this message to Taku for more comments. -- kt2

---

Hello, your page moves are creating numerous double redirects. In the future, please update the links after moving the page to alleviate this problem. Thanks. -- Notheruser 01:40 23 May 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry to trouble you with this, but if you have time, we could do with a Japanese speaker at Talk:Yukar[?]. Evercat 02:06 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, sorry if I've come across as overbearing in cases like the merge of tween and teenager... Evercat 02:41 23 May 2003 (UTC)

No problem about Yukar. Sorry I am not sure by overbearing. You mean being bold? Being bold is absolutely welcome here. I am probably the one who is being so bold sometimes too much. -- Taku 02:46 23 May 2003 (UTC)

---

See talkpage of inheritance. Sorry about the second dead link, it says (from my cache):

Object-based languages are another form of object-oriented language, in which there is no class and individual objects can be created by some constructs. Some features of the object-oriented languages are also discussed in [Abadi 1996].

-- Taku 02:40 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Taku. There are object-oriented languages without classes see self programming language as an example. But self is object-oriented because it offers up the concept of inheritance and polymorphism. Without these you don't have object-orientedness. To distinguish those languages that have objects as holders of data and/or behaviour but do not offer up features of the OO paradigm the term object based is pretty much universally used. Now it is possible to mimic object-oriented programming features in both procedural and object-based languages, but that doesn't make them object-oriented. Now these are difficult concepts and it is understandable that a few people do not follow the general principle of distinguishing the features of Object-oriented and object based, but the vast majority of the programming world do. I think it only sensible that Wikipedia do the same. We should have an article on object based programming[?] or object theory if you like, but the correct term for the concept that involves OO principles is OO. Mintguy 03:16 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Look at it this way.... What do we call this thing which involces inheritance and polymorphism, and is so different from procedutal programming that it needs it's own name? We call it object-oriented programming. Ok but then you say there is this other type of thing with objects (object based) so that MUST be a subset of object oriented. But ff object-oriented just meant having objects then there should be some other name for having objects and this new concept of inheritance and polymorphism. Well there is a special name for it it's called object-orientedness, so we have a paradox.

To use an analogy (which I normally hate doing). Birds have wings. Butterflies also have wings, but that doesn't make butterflies a subset of bird does it? Butterflies arn't even a stepping stone towards birds. Bird and butterflies make use of wings, but birds have developed the use of wings in a way that butterflies never could. Mintguy 10:56 23 May 2003 (UTC)

This kind of discussion is rather irrelevant. You have a point. You might be right but it really doesn't matter because it is POV. OOP should refer to programming with both use of objects and reusability. It might be true but notice should. There are idiots you call. They call even mere use of objects is part of OOP and we cannot ignore them. Besides, you never answer my question. -- Taku 13:27 23 May 2003 (UTC)

What question is outstanding? Mintguy 13:33 23 May 2003 (UTC)

First, please calm down. I don't mean to insult you or anything at all. We can just discuss about naming peacefully. No? My question is actually different than what you think. I am merely talking about why do you object naming inheritance (computer science). what's wrong with that? Do you think inheritance is NOT a computer science topic? Do you object the name inheritance (computer science) or do you think while it can be acceptable, inheritance (object-oriented programming) is better than it? -- Taku 00:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I guess you might have not notices. -- Taku 13:46 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Inheritance isn't part of the procedural paradigm or the functional paradigm, so inheritance (object-oriented programming) is more precise than inheritance (computer science). Why isn't this clear to you? Mintguy 13:53 23 May 2003 (UTC)

okay. Then you don't have any reason to object the title inheritance (computer science)? I mean you don't think inheritance (computer science) is wrong but you think inheritance (object-oriented programming) is better? -- Taku 14:11 23 May 2003 (UTC)

It could be at inheritance (computer science) or inheritance (software) of inheritance (computing) or inheritance (science), but all of these subjects encompass ideas and concepts that are inheritance is not related to. Inheritance is related DIRECTLY and ABSOLUTELY related to object-oriented programming. I put a question to you. Why do you object to inheritance (object-oriented programming)? Mintguy

Look at it another way. If I had a big text book about computer science. I would expect to find inheritance discussed in depth in the chapter on Object-oriented programming. I wouldn't expect to find it in any other chapter. Mintguy 14:19 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Because

1. (something) is used for disambig purpose, nothing more than it. We cannot have an article called simply inheritance because it is ambigous in context. (something) should be as broad as possible term. If inheritance (computer sicnece) is no problem, we don't have to use more specific term.
2. There are some people who claim inheritance shouldn't be limited to OOP. It doesn't matter if they are idiots or not. What matters is they exist. See talkpage of inheritance.

1. inheritance can be used in other object-oritended paradigms such as object-oriented design, object-oriented operating system or even in some component models such as COM of Microsoft.
2. (object-oriented programming) might mislead readers that it implies it is limited to object-oriented programming languages. They are wrong but they will complain C can be used to do inheritance.

-- Taku 14:26 23 May 2003 (UTC)

1. It makes sense to have the disambiguation part of an article title consistent acrosss a subject. All of the articles about games which have name clashes are at ...(game). There is a move to make ...(movie) and ...(film) consistent. All of the subjects which relate to the object-oriented paradigm are at ...(object-oriented programming). You might argue that they should be ...(object-oriented design) or ...(object-oriented paradigm), but object-oriented programming is the most common term used to encapsulate the concepts of OO.
2. Some people claim that the world is flat, should the article on the earth say that that it might or might not be spherical?
3. You seem to have a problem understanding the usage of these terms. The concepts that unite abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance is termed the object-oriented paradigm. The usage of these concepts in designing systems is object-oriented design, and the implementation of these designs is object-oriented programming. It is all esentially the same thing. COM is a client-server model for the distribution of services across one or more platforms like [CORBA]] and they are both based on the object oriented priciples mentioned above.
4. You can attempt and mimic object-oriented designs in most language, but that doesn't make the languages object oriented in themselves. The article clearly discusses what is required of an object-oriented language. Very few people actually write object-oriented designs in non-object oriented languages.

Mintguy 14:48 23 May 2003 (UTC)

1. computer science seems more consistent with other articles related to computer science. From outside CS, OOP is just a part of CS.
2. If people in MIT claim the Earth is flat, isn't it worth to discuss?
3. So are you saying you agree with inheritance used outside object-oriented programming? area called maybe object-oriented paradigm or something? Besides, encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance are not invention of OOP. They had existed before OOP.
4. I doubt your claim. For example, see GNOME apis. They use object-oriented paradigm for sure but in C.

-- Taku 15:36 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Taku - I've written to the mailing list and asked for someone to arbitrate in this dispute, please stop making anymore changes until a resolution is found. Mintguy 15:41 23 May 2003 (UTC)

As long as the debate is underway, I wond't make any change. Otherwise, I have to assume the consensus is reached.

---

Taku, please do not dump text from the Perl Design Patterns Book without reading it. I understand that this is written collaboratively on a wiki. As such, much of it contains stray notes from anonymous users, and one even had a copy and pasted IRC log. If you want to have this material here, you should not expect others to do the work of editing it. --Eloquence 06:04 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Please edit:

• Application generator

Data-dumping is a delicate issue. I know some people don't like it much. First, if you are concerned about copyright issue, it should be no problem. See Perl Design Patterns Book. The project is licensed under GFDL. My motivation is simply to cover design patterns quickly. We need more works but I think dumped texts are a good string point.

---

Although I haven't made this particular mistake with you (I made the opposite mistake with Anthere, though), I would guess the reason people would take you for a "she" at first blush would be because in English, due to the many words and names with Latin roots, nouns (common or proper) ending in "-a" tend to be thought of as feminine. Obviously, looking at your name, it's clear (at least to me) it has little or nothing to do with Latin (and knowing a bit more about you, it's even clearer why), but that's still the impression some people might come away with. -- John Owens 09:41 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for through explanation, though no one cannot be sure I am actually biologicall and socially male, even if I claim so. Maybe I can put my photo so people cannot mistake.

---

Hi - you're very welcome for the Law of Demeter article. Like any article, it can be expanded, but hopefully I included enough information so that you can see what it means (and more importantly, its pros and cons). If you want more info, feel free to read the citation entries. I think it's really important that the Wikipedia include lots of citations; I think the citations are important to help fact-checking. -- Dwheeler 02:00 27 May 2003 (UTC)

The article now is a really good starting point. I particuarly appreciate you put references or citations. Sometimes people just write from their memory, so there is misunderstanding or facutal erros, which I usually do though.

---

Just curious about some of the unicode characters you've uploaded lately (such as the ones used in Radical (Chinese character). Looks like they have a faint remnant of a border around them - is this intentional? It's sort of visually distracting. If they are just works in progress, then disregard :) -- Wapcaplet 19:26 27 May 2003 (UTC)

You are right that we see some guideline at each character. The truth is I just simply rendered characters from unicode.org[?]. I guess that line is important to know the balance of a character. -- Taku 19:35 27 May 2003 (UTC)

---

About these radical images ... have you taken a look at http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Japanese_dictionary_coordination/Images_of_kanji_radicals ? Taw 20:41 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Yes, please move this project over to Wiktionary. The last thing we need is 30,000 more bot-generated articles. I'm also a bit perplexed that you seem to be going forward with this project when it was made very clear that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --mav 22:51 27 May 2003 (UTC)

mav: it's perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. Wiktionary should not really exist. Taw 23:20 27 May 2003 (UTC)

What? The subjects of a dictionary article and a encyclopedia article are different so there is a very real difference between the two. --mav

That's just different form, subject is the same (and wiki software doesn't support dictionary form well anyway). Language is perfectly fine subject for encyclopedia. Taw 00:42 28 May 2003 (UTC)

No. That is why we have dictionaries. --mav

Before going to actual debate, I just want to tell that I am not going to 30,000 bot-generated articles. I am not. What I am doing is put the list of radicals in radical article. I may go to put more Chinese charaters but certainly I won't make an independent article for each character. -- Taku 03:13 28 May 2003 (UTC)~

OK. Sorry for the fuss. :) But I still think it would be a great idea to have a Wiktionary article for each character. --mav

---

So... you are Japanese and you cross your sevens. Did you learn this habit in the United States? Once, a Chinese man told me that it was in the United States that he started to cross his sevens. My guess is that a Japanese who crosses his sevens does so in order to avoid making his sevens look like the katakana "ku". --Juuitchan

What's this? Seven? Habit? -- Taku 03:29 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In Talk:Handwriting foreign accent you wrote that you are Japanese and you cross your sevens.

---

Next time I'll protect village pump before I start archving it ;) -- Tim Starling 04:50 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry I was not watching your archiving. But I think I reedited a new archive so that it can be consistent with your editting. -- Taku 04:52 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's alright now. -- Tim Starling 04:59 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

What exactly are sysops there for, if not to be bothered by requests at VfD etc.? -- John Owens 01:22 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure what you meant but I meant by that don't bother sysop that any of you can set a redirect, while only sysop can delete articles. If you were not sysop, you can still fix things. Did I insult you or am I missing something? -- Taku 01:25 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Regarding Inheritance (object-oriented programming):
I may be completely wrong, but it appears to me that you don't have a lot of experience with OOP? Maybe you have learned something about inheritence as related to OOP? I'm not sure. But as you can see, a number of people who are experienced feel that OOP Inheritence needs to be a seperate article than Computer Science Inheritence in general. This of course is a perfectly valid idea. You seem to be set on making it part of the (non-existent) Computer Science article? Now, you could probably convince everyone to change the name of the article, but not to Inheritence (computer science)[?]. This is b/c people beleive inheritence in an OOP sense warrents it's own article. So, if you have an idea for another name change that you would feel is less confusing to laymen, please put it in the talk. You will not find people agreeing with a move to Inheritence (computer science), however. I noticed that you say on your user page "Often, there is a controversy about my contributions." I think this is one of those cases. Thanks for your input. MB 13:55 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually I do agree that inheritance in oop may deserve to be a separate article. My point is not that inheritance is foundamental or not but we don't use a parenthesis to have a subtopic or we don't disambiguate topics with narrow topic name. (computer science) is a good enough for disambiguation. This is about disambiguation not about OOP at all. -- Taku 14:08 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well as you can see, Inheritence (computer science) would be too vauge of a name, so if you don't like Inheritence (object-oriented programming) then maybe Object-oriented programming, inheritence[?]? I can't think of a better name than what we have now, but Inheritence (computer science) is definately not suited. MB 14:16 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We need to disambiguate inheritance from other completely different topics such as one in biology. It is obvious that inheritance in species have nothing to do with inheritance of classes, for instance. Because inheritance in oop is part of inheritance in cs (I think oop is part of cs), inheritance (computer science) is not a misnomer no matter the article only talks about inheritance in oop or not. I suggested the name inheritance in object-oriented programming because if we have two articles inheritance (computer science) and inheritance (object-oriented programming), the readers might wonder isn't it oop is part of cs? -- Taku 14:22 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Alright, well this clairifies you POV to me, do you mind if I cross post this to the group discussion? MB 14:40 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Go ahead. I thought I made a point but probably not.

I've just thought of a possible confusion that might arrise from calling the article inheritance (computer science). That is in the use of inheritance in genetic algorithms. Mintguy 14:50 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sure. Inheritance in cs can be too vague topic to be concentrated into one article.

Allow me to repeat myself for clarification. Again, it really doesn't matter much how a concept of inheritance is treated in cs. I doubt but it may be used only in oop. It may contain more. I have still failed to see the reason we want to limit parenthesis disambiguation to a narrow topic. Disambiguation is needed because sometimes it is unclear what the term refers in that context. Usually simple writting out in English language that is good enough. e.g. Japanese name. Parenthesis disambiguation is usually regarded as rather like hidden parameter. e.g. Chicago (disambiguation). Because it sounds silly if you wrote like Chicago as disambiguation[?] or Disambiguation of Chicago[?].

Inheritance in computer science[?] sounds fine but the trouble is you might wonder what about inheritance in other topics of cs such as inheritance in object-oriented programming and so on.

I don't have much preference about how many articles about inheritance. If the article is too long, it should be broke up. If there are too much small topics that are closely realted each other, they can be combined for the sake of readers. -- Taku 20:12 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

MB, please read the discussion with Mintguy above. I presume you wanted me to repeat myself because you didn't happen to read that conversion above? -- Taku 20:17 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The above text is confusing I don't know who said what. But I guess Taku you said "Sure. Inheritance in cs can be too vague topic to be concentrated into one article."

Right. Well the thing is we are talking about a single word, "inheritance" that can mean several distinct things, depending upon the context.

In the context of genetic algorithms

It means ... the ability of modelled objects to mate, mutate and propagate their problem solving genes to the next generation, in order to produce an evolved solution to a particular problem.

Whereas in context of OOP

It means ... to include the pre-defined features of one or more objects in another, whereby complex objects can be modelled by creating a hierarchy of modifications of existing modelled objects. Or in the case of interface inheritance to allow the modification of predefined methods by overriding the implementation.

Do you now see that these are two very different concepts and should not be lumped together, just because they both use the word Inheritance!? Mintguy 20:42 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, it seemed rather off topic when I read it, and that paragraph already mentioned the usefulness of DM in computer science. I think the article should deal with the subject.. Arithmetic mentions that it is taught to schoolchildren, it doesn't mention organizations that advocate it cause that would be an enormous off-topic listing (and also some sort of irrelevant advertising) -- Rotem Dan 20:33 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Oh! I forget about the function in computer science while I move the part of "specify function" from function to How to specify a function. Do you want a name change? Wshun

---

So Taku, do you play Go yourself? I'd love to give you a game on an internet go server sometime. :-) Evercat 19:11 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)