From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 11cae8,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid11cae8,public From: Tansel Ersavas Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1996/12/15 Message-ID: <32B3DD77.2F17@deep.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 204221630 references: <58se4d$68c@news3.digex.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: RASE Inc. mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: tansel@deep.net newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lnag.java,comp.object,comp.software-eng x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Date: 1996-12-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: drush@zakalwe.raleigh.ibm.com wrote: > Regarding Objects & "real-world" modeling: I have also seen this as primarily > a political ploy. Yes there are objects in the real world, but (nearly) as soon > as you start doing analysis you are working in an abstracted realm. The real > question is how to structure your abstractions, and that can frequently be > done in many different ways. In fact, as soon as you start to think, you start working on abstracted realm. It is the basis of our thinking, our understanding. We can not grasp things as they are, because anything has almost infinite complexity. If you want to model a chair, to model it as is in the real world, you have to model it down to the molecules, even quarks. All of our thinking involves abstraction. OO provides us with a set of tools to abstract things in the real world, imagined worlds, or anything. We should remember that there is a discipline which their entire aim is to model the real world as close as possible, and this discipline is simulation, not OO. There you need your system to match the current reality as close as possible. OO can be used for that, better then most other techniques available Today, and in fact guess why Simula, the ancestor of most object oriented languages was developed. > The "real-world" is the system that you're replacing. To inflict that structure > on the system you're designing can be a *BIG* mistake. Depends, it may be, or it may not be. There are real world systems, their structure can only be our envy. Like a fish. None of the human made ships can even come close to the perfection of a fish. They run slightly over a 1/4 th of the efficiency of a fish. Only about two years ago, scientists were able to learn some of the secrets of efficient swimming and hydrodynamic structure by mimicking the fish, and observing. However, in the man made world we call "real", there are a lot of things you don't want to incorporate into your design. Man made systems tend to accumulate entropy, especially through the inflicted structure of industrial era mentality companies. There you can find amusing examples of how things should not be done. If you model what you see there, You won't end up with a better mess, just a faster one. Tansel RASE Inc. mailto:tansel@rase.com http://www.rase.com/