Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:zberger-A7F0BE.00153011042008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <13uq9i0e2sfdd1a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> < http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/4/lec/14
>
>> -----
>> Why did the originators of object orientation rename "structures" to
>> "objects"
>> and "procedures" to "methods"?  Hubris and arrogance, in my opinion. 
>> Some
>> people believe object orientation is a completely new "paradigm" for
>> programming.  The best known paradigms for computer languages are
these.
>>
>> - Procedural languages:  Fortran, C, Pascal
>> - Functional languages:  Lisp, Scheme, Haskell
>> - Logic languages:  Prolog
>> - Object-oriented languages:  Java, Smalltalk, C++
>>
>> The first three of these really use very different ways of thinking
about
>> how
>> to program a computer.  Object-oriented languages are mostly a gloss on
>> procedural languages.
>>
>> The one part of object-orientation that really stands out, and might
give 
>> it
>> claim to being a separate "paradigm," is _polymorphism_.
>> -----
>
> I think you have missed the lightbulb moment.
>
> As "structure" is not an "object".  Nor is a "procedure" a "method".
>

Amen to that :-)

> An "object", in pure OO thought, is a bundle of zero or more structures
> AND zero or more procedures together.
>

Yep... Amen again :-)

  The important (to me...), and usually overlooked by people obsessed only

with coding, thing here is the CONCEPTUAL use you get from an Object. This

is BECAUSE it is as you described above. Identifying Objects conceptually 
and building them in code go hand in hand in my book. I have never 
considered Objects to be ONLY the "instantiation in memory of a defined 
computer Class", even though that is all they are to a program. PEOPLE can

use Objects (conceptually) and can model with them, modify them, (without 
committing any computer code to memory), do walkthroughs with them, and 
conceptually juggle with them to get a better solution. That is just as 
important in an Object Oriented approach to problem solution, as the 
technical details which apply to computer code.

> You can certainly use OO compilers to write procedural type code as you
> describe -- or you can use procedural only compilers to write OO style
> code as long as you enforce your the OO rules yourself.

Absolutely. The fact is that when you encapsulate behaviours and
properties 
into an Object, the synergistic whole, is far greater than the sum of its 
parts. The code representation is only ONE aspect of it.

Pete.
-- 
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."