Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE tools)

[pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)]

>>> "drs" == drs  <drs@inxpress.net> writes:

[ ... much omitted,including an outline for a class 'complex' ... ]

piercarl> main()
piercarl> {
piercarl> complex c1, c2;
piercarl> //etc.
piercarl> }

piercarl> Is this an OO program? It's hard for me to see any objects in
piercarl> it either for I can only see variables (memory objects, a
piercarl> different concept) and they don't interact with each other in
piercarl> any sort of interesting meaning of the word.

drs> Well, c1 and c2 are indeed instantiations of the above prototype;

Which ones? (rhetorical question alert)

drs> they have a defined address and can do things (unlike the
drs> prototype).

What can they do? (rhetorical question alert)

drs> You're wrong if you think c1 and c2 are not objects; they
drs> are. entities of the class complex create their own scope, which is
drs> internal and allows internal processes. This really is quite
drs> different from C.

Oh no, oh please -- we have been on this subject for the past few months
(and before that a few years ago with the "simply put an object is a
variable" thread). Not again, not so soon. Oh no, not again.

Well, I'll then quote high authority, Grady Booch, hoping that it will
be enough:

OOADWA>     Suppose that we have the following declarations:

OOADWA>   StorageTank s1,s2;
OOADWA>   WaterTank w;
OOADWA>   NutrientTank n;

OOADWA>   Variables such as 's1', s2' w, and 'n' are not objects. To be
OOADWA>   precise, they are simply names that we use to designate
OOADWA>   objects of their respective types: when we say ``the object
OOADWA>   's1''' we really mean the instance of 'StorageTank' denoted by
OOADWA>   the variable 's1'. We will explain this subtlety again in the
OOADWA>   next chapter.

Too bad that the next chapter does not really contain a good
explanation, butnthis should be enough.

drs> Now, if your idea is that "Object-oriented" boils down to message
drs> sending, then I think you're correct;

Oh no, not again, I think I have participated in thread on this very
same subject at least three times in as many years. Oh no, not again. 

drs> but by that definition there are only a few true "object-oriented"
drs> languages, and C++ is not one of them.

Oh no, not again, I think I haveparticipated in threads on this very
same subject at least N times in as many years. Oh no, not again.

Well, as the saying goes, repetition is the very essence of USENET,
whose very essence is repetition, as somebody said.