<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Please bear with me.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Point of departure</STRONG>:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My goal is OWL (but replacing the "O" for
Ontological with Noological)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/history.html">http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/history.html</A> 2.
<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Noology (as in noumenon or "state of
mind") i.e. rational</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology</A> Zoology
(as in phenomenon or state of body) i.e. Empirical</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG>Declaration:</STRONG> None of these OO
languages in their current context seem to work for
me.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG><FONT
size=3>Ob</FONT>servations:</STRONG> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I love AWK, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I don't
like C++, </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>I Like plain vanilla Prolog and
Smalltalk (as procedural and declarative) IDE's, but in there current form
useless for my purposes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I'm unsure of Haskell but, feel it has untapped
potential at a meta level.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So far I have found, that Haskell is a great
"what-if" language (the comparison with the spread sheet correct). I am very
much a remnant of the "how-to" generation (one cannot get much lower than
assembler). I found it difficult to take responsibility and let go of my "goto".
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But I do need to reach the "when-to" level: my
project is Virtual Reality and SAI:(asIn Silicon Assisted Intelligence is gnot
AI). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Somehow though all of us early (infant)
programmers moved pretty seamlessly form goto's and flowcharting to
pseudo-code and structure programming techniques: because it works.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>However in 1989 I did BR and Semantic Modeling
(Debenham and Montgomery UTS), realising immediately that it did not work. Since
then I still see the Systems Designers equivalent of the flowchart and the
goto i.e </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Entity Relationship Modeling <A
href="http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/319.html">http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/319.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Why is it so hard for SysDesigners to make the same
mind shift we did?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sorry if I sound rude but I'm stuck in an OO rut
and I need to reach Process Orientation rather quickly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Any serious suggestions (apart from "just go
away")?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Justin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PS: I don't like dialectical bickering over
detail.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please spare me the flaming</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>---<BR>Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.<BR>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<A
href="http://www.grisoft.com">http://www.grisoft.com</A>).<BR>Version: 6.0.585 /
Virus Database: 370 - Release Date: 2/11/04</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>