"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:FcednQcQ9YCRWZ_VnZ2dnUVZ_h6hnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:66durcFk6oreU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [snip]
>
>> 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".
>
> Some of the difficulties I have with the term "object-oriented"
> are addressed in a blog by Chuck Hoffman titled, "conventional
> OO syntax considered <strike>harmful</strike> needlessly
> misleading", January 9, 2008.
> < http://nothinghappens.net/?p=214
>
>
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-based_programming
>
> describes an "object" similar to the way I have understood it
> to be, with additions I hadn't thought about at all..
> -----
> An object is similar to a structure, with the addition of method
> pointers, member access control, and an implicit data member
> which locates instances of the class (i.e. actual objects of that
> class) in the class hierarchy (essential for runtime inheritance
> features).
> -----
>
> I find no immediate connection between this or other
> formal definitions of "object" and the identification of
> objects during the earlier phases of analysis and design;
> however, these phases together with programming may
> be (and in my case are) connected by "class".
>
> At least eight years ago, I made a mental ****ft from
> "object-oriented" to what is now called "class-oriented"
> and, once I did that, the benefits and problems of using
> object-oriented techniques became clearer.
>
> I have no reason to doubt that "object" was clear in
> Dr. Kay's mind when he coined the term "object-oriented";
> but that same clarity has eluded me. Even today, "object"
> in "object-oriented" seems contrived, rather that natural;
> especially in contrast to "procedure" in "procedural".
> "Encapsulation-oriented" might be a better term than
> "object-oriented".
>
> "Alan Kay is often quoted as having said that, in retrospect,
> he would have called it 'message oriented' rather than
> 'object oriented'." -- < http://nothinghappens.net/?p=214
>
>
> However, I find "class-oriented" to be just fine.
>
> My experience, for more than twenty years, was with a
> company that produces both hardware and software.
> Embedded systems and stand-alone software are two
> places where object-oriented (or class-oriented) is
> an excellent fit. This is, therefore, the point of view from
> which I studied object-orientation. From this perspective,
> the goal was, as I saw it, to create separate, reusable,
> application-centric class structures, similar in form to
> Microsoft's Foundation Cl***** and, from those class
> structures embedded programs and stand-alone
> applications.
>
> Admittedly, this is probably not the best frame of mind
> for learning about shape objects, ball objects bouncing,
> or velociraptor objects chasing, pouncing on, and eating
> prey objects. While I don't know how my transition
> occurred, I imagine the mention of object and seeing a
> class may have equated the two and led me to think about
> class only. Once I made the transition, object became
> rather meaningless and I was free to learn what I needed.
>
An interesting post and POV.
Thanks for that, Rick.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
>
|
