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

[piercarl@sabi.demon.co.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)]

>>> "menio" == Anthony Menio <menio@pegasus.montclair.edu> writes:

menio> On 18 Nov 1996, Piercarlo Grandi wrote:

>>>>>> "menio" == Anthony Menio <menio@pegasus.montclair.edu> writes:

menio> On 11 Nov 1996, Piercarlo Grandi wrote:

  piercarl> Do OO programs by and large describe static relationships
  piercarl> between modules (or parts thereof like interfaces)? Or do they
  piercarl> describe collections of instances/clones of those modules (or
  piercarl> their types) and how they interact?

  menio> In addition to the comments made in my last post I though
  menio> following would offer a clear and correct answer. Systems with an
  menio> object oriented architecture consist of objects. Classes are
  menio> merely blue prints to create objects from. Just as a building is
  menio> made of beams, rooms,prefab components and cars of
  menio> transmissions,radiators,exhust systems system and not the
  menio> blueprints of these things so with an OO software system.

  piercarl> "Just as" is a bit ambitious above, isn't it? Just look at how
  piercarl> buildings are built, and build OO systems accordingly. I
  piercarl> wonder why nobody :-) ever realized it is so simple. It is
  piercarl> also extremely convenient for the sake of terseness to make
  piercarl> statements without any sort of supporting argument. It reminds
  piercarl> me of the writing style of several OO-speak gurus.

menio> Evidence ?

Easy enough:

  OOADWA>   In the field of artificial intelligence, developments in
  OOADWA> knowledge representation have contributed to an understanding
  OOADWA> of an object-oriented world. In 1975, Minsky first proposed a
  OOADWA> theory of frames to represent real-world objects as perceived
  OOADWA> by image and natural language recognition systems. Since then,
  OOADWA> frames have been used as the architectural foundation for a
  OOADWA> variety of intelligent systems.
  OOADWA>   Lastly, philosophy and cognitive science have contributed to the
  OOADWA> advancement of the object model. The idea that the world could
  OOADWA> be viewed either in terms of objects or processes was Greek
  OOADWA> innovation, and in the seventeenth century, we find Descartes
  OOADWA> observing that humans naturally apply an object-oriented view
  OOADWA> of the world. In the twentieth century, Rand expanded upon
  OOADWA> these themes in her philosophy of objectivist epistemology.
  OOADWA> More recently, Minsky has proposed a model of human
  OOADWA> intelligence in which he considers the mind to be organized as
  OOADWA> a society of otherwise mindless agents. Minsky argues that
  OOADWA> only through the cooperative behaviour of these agents do we
  OOADWA> find what we call _intelligence_.

This is an excellent example of the work on an OO-speak guru, and
consists of a series of rather daring statements unsupported by any
argument.

menio> witness Component architectures this is a prime example of reuse
menio> of concepts and methods of construction from the physical domain.

Really? Please exemplify how component architectures are such a prime
example. In fact I would regard them as a prime example that concepts
and methods of construction in the software domain are nowhere like
those of the physical domain. Software component reuse is uniquely
useful and powerful precisely because it is not at all anything like in
the physical word: for reuse of abstractions has uniquely convenient
properties that are simply impossible to achieve in the physical world.

menio> The essence of OO architecture is the viewing of abstract systems
menio> in terms of the real world, ie as if the were physical systems.

piercarl> Please describe how you would view an OO program that does
piercarl> calculations using matrixes of complex numbers as if it were a
piercarl> physical system...

menio> I think the problem here is your interpretation of of the phrase
menio> "as if they were physical systems". The meaning I wished conveyed
menio> is in "in terms of conceptually" not of "not in terms of
menio> literally".

Wonderful! How would you view software systems "in terms of
conceptually" "as if they were physical systems". Let me say that I
suspect that the "conceptually" bit will be amazingly flexible.

menio> As far as your specific example wouldn't such a OOP program still
menio> consist of instances of needed classes and method invocations
menio> between them ?  Hence the ideas of classification, instances,
menio> encapsulation would still be key to design and evident in the
menio> runtime system. These concepts are paramount to our viewing of
menio> real world systems, of physical systems, and such systems are the
menio> source of these ideas.

Amazing news from America! Just consider encapsulation: if you really
think that it "paramount to our viewing of real world systems" please
exemplify a real world system which involves encapsulation.

menio> OO is every where in the real world isn't the blue prints for a
menio> new Buick LeSabre simply a class ?

No. It is isn't even remotely so. A class is a mental construct,
precisely defined formal entity; a set of blueprints are not even
remotely anything like that.

menio> The interface to an instance of this class(brakes,gas
menio> pedal,sterring) provide an implementation independent means of
menio> communicating with it.

Do you really think that a pedal is anything remotely related to a
method or an attribute?

menio> Thus if this is so then isn't the OO program for matrix
menio> calculations modeled in terms of the physical world?

Well, I am seriously unable to see how. To me your arguments above are
incomprehensible gibberish, for you mix in various types of analogies
entities that to me are on entirely different levels and domains of
discourse. You have mentioned "classification, instances,
encapsulation", which are purely abstract mental activities, and nowhere
even remotely related to the physical world.

  menio> Thus it a fundamental process to resolve such questions through
  menio> examining systems of the source domain of the metaphor to gain
  menio> a better understanding of conceptual issues in the target
  menio> domain.

piercarl> Continue writing in this style and you'll become a wealthy
piercarl> OO-speak guru like Brady Gooch or Steve Mellor. ``A sucker is
piercarl> born every minute.''

menio> Drwaing parallels from my ideas and communication skills to those
menio> of accepted OO speakers is hardly an argument against my ideas
menio> and communication skills. In fact thanks for the complement :)

It is not an argument against or for: it is merely a good omen for your
future wealth.

Your phrase above is admirable: it is entirely content-free, but it
sounds profound and important, and uses a good number of buzzword:
"metaphor", "conceptual", "issues", "domain". This is going to sell very
well. As OOADWA has demonstrated, there are a lot of happy customers
that are prepared to pay quite a bit of money to read this sort of speak.