"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:h8-dnR5z4bcjaJ3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:66b4muF2jli9bU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:Z4CdncSCCf-RM2LanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snip]
>> >
>> > The fact is that were one to encapsulate behaviors and
>> > properties into (a COBOL 68 program as) an object, it
>> > would not be more than what it appears to be.
>>
>> I make a simple statement, intended to express a concept. (There is a
>> synergy obtained when you create objects. Part of that synergy is the
>> fact
>> that you can use objects in many ways OUTSIDE of expressing them as
> computer
>> code.)
>
> Please note the use of the plural "objects".
>
>> "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."
>
> Please note the use of the singular "Object" preceded by
> "an" suggesting an intent to use the singular.
>
> Pete, make up your mind! <g> My response was predicated
> on your use of the singular, meaning that the "synergistic
> whole" is encapsulated within one object.
Why would that make a difference? A single object has synergy and so do
multiple objects derived from the same class. It isn't im****tant. What IS
im****tant is that by building Objects with encapsulated properties and
behaviours (and using them as such), a synergy is obtained that isn't
available if you don't do that.
>
> [snip]
>> "Oh no, Pete. If I do that with COBOL 68 I don't have any synergy..."
>>
>> Well, Gee, Rick... might be time you moved off COBOL 68.
>
> My references to COBOL 68 demonstrate that the
> *academic* definition of "object" is so broad that even a
> language that can not be use in object-oriented progamming
> is included. This renders the definition of "object" absurd
> and impractical.
>
No, it doesn't, but I understand your point. Normally, people can infer
from
the context which use of "object" is being employed (a broad or a narrow
one). Most people are not totally literal in interpreting what they read;
they look for meaning... It staggers me that a plural or a singular in
the
context above can mean so much to you, but I accept that it does.
OK, I read your response and thought about it.
I can see that it may be impossible for us to communicate on objects
because
we have different intentions and different world views.
I believe you are sincere and not doing it out of mischief so I'll stay
with
it for now.
You have stated elsewhere that you don't like the use of the word
"object",
but that is what is used, and it can have different meanings depending on
the context.
I gave some thought to why the use of "object" should be so troublesome
(at
least for you and me...)
I use "object" in a broader sense than you do (except when I don't...:-))
and, as you are not interested in the overall concept I am trying to
express
(and, I might add it is extremely difficult for me to express something
that
is a purely conceptual abstraction, despite normally having little
difficulty expressing my thoughts) you seized on what I wrote and attacked
it
because it doesn't match your definition. It's like you make no attempt
to
see what I am trying to say, and are more interested in a hair splitting
argument about it on grounds I have no intention of discussing, let alone
defending.
During this discussion I have sometimes used "object" in a much broader
sense than merely "an instance of a Class".
Peter Coad (Coad/Yourdon) gives some good advice on what he calls "Object
think"... and I believe this is the basic fundamental way of looking at
objects which I absorbed many years ago and still operate upon. For me
now,
it is "taken as read" and I am usually communicating with others who
understand this definition also, so no problem arises. On the fairly rare
occasions when I am discussing an object as being computer code
representing
an instance of a class, I believe that is pretty obvious from the context,
but it may not be.
Coad views each object as knowing things and knowing how to do things;
whether you agree with it or not, it will at least help to clarify for you
how I see it...
When modelling with objects (or even generally thinking about them) I tend
to personalize them, so...
I am a Customer.
I know my:
name
address
phone number
date of birth
I know how to:
display my details on various devices and media
update my details
create a new instance of myself
cancel my account
create a new account for myself
display details of any account I hold
get a balance of any account I hold
This is a long way from COBOL 68 :-)
You can see that this kind of view is quite distant from the formalism of
OOA, OOD, OOP although it can certainly be applied there also.
I think that an article I read back in the early days (around 10 years
ago...) makes an accurate statement of some of the problems being
encountered here...
The following is extracted from one small part of it:
"The Problem of Adults Learning New Concepts
Business engineering teams are increasingly turning to object-oriented
techniques to model business processes. In the future, the business model
and the software model will become fused. Both business and computing
professionals must learn to "object think" in order to gain the knowledge
and skills needed for business reengineering. However, since object
orientation involves a paradigm ****ft, the principles of adult learning
must
be carefully applied. One mainframe programmer (quoted from an article in
Computerworld March 14, 1994) who made the transition to objects,
described
the essence of the new way of thinking: "In any kind of procedural
language,
you are breaking down work flow and coding it. In object-oriented design,
you're breaking down events and assigning responsibilities to *OBJECTS*
and
not really dealing with work flow anymore." Once the new way of thinking
is
instilled, the syntax, grammar and complexities of object-oriented tools
and
techniques become manageable to the learner. "
(My emphasis...)
I don't know if any of this helps at all, but this is my best shot at
explaining what I mean (usually) when I use the term "object".
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|
