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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Real OO Date: 1996/05/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 153397784 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1996-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison) 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? This again hits upon that core issue that I discussed a bit in a reply to Joachim on this subject. I won't repeat that. However, it is not true that a class _is_ an operation. Neither _is_ it a "module". Sure, you can pound a square peg into a round hole and effectively use it as such, but that fact is getting at the point. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com