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: fac41,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,c52c30d32b866eae X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2ea02452876a15e1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 152692295 sender: news@assip.csasyd.oz references: organization: CSC Australia reply-to: donh@syd.csa.com.au newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jon S Anthony writes: [...] :So what makes a function a "poor" abstraction??? In the right :context (and the one under consideration is a good example), it :can be the perfect abstraction. The real problem is, _all you :have are classes_, and it just is plain not true that all the :world's a class. The types of Eiffel (and probably other language's) classes that I can think of are: a) Data only, or b) Actions only, or c) Data and actions. Isn't this sufficient to model any real world phnomena? By adding various contraints and relationships between such classes, you can describe anything. What do you have in mind that can't be described with classes? :/Jon :-- :Jon Anthony :Organon Motives, Inc. :1 Williston Road, Suite 4 :Belmont, MA 02178 : :617.484.3383 :jsa@organon.com : /// Don. (o o) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=oOO=-(_)-=OOo=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-