Re: Real OO

[jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz)]

jsa@organon.com wrote 30.04.96 on Re: Real OO:

> Well, whether it is a "real" problem or not, you have to introduce
> contrived/extraneous classes in an attempt to define the things.

Well, I can't avoid this if I equate module and class. In Ada,  
I'd have to create lots of extraneous packages - doesn't sound  
much of a difference to me. You always need some syntactic sugar  
if you want to add a new function as an afterthought - be it a  
class, package, module, or whatever. If you don't want syntactic  
sugar, use C.

> > poor abstraction that got through because the programmer
> So what makes a function a "poor" abstraction???

Use the definition that suits your taste :) .

> In the right
> context (and the one under consideration is a good example), it
> can be the perfect abstraction.

Of course. My point wasn't that functions as abstractions cannot  
be, it's just that *usually* functions are not the right tool.

I don't think it is bad that everything is implemented as a class  
even though I fully recognize that
> it just is plain not true that all the
> world's a class.
Still, classes are as good as any other concept for making a  
module, so why not use them?

Usually, an abstraction isn't embodied in a single class, but in  
a set of related classes. While the notion of "class" is  
heavyweigth, actual classes are often quite lightweight.

-Joachim

--
Im speaking for myself here.