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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,7f8fc37d854731d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: piercarl@sabi.demon.co.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Subject: Re: Interesting but sensitive topic to discuss (HELP: - OOP and CASE tools) Date: 1996/11/27 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 200955751 x-nntp-posting-host: sabi.demon.co.uk x-disclaimer: Contents reflect my personal views only references: <32813322.41C6@kyebek3.kjist.ac.kr> <55pqr5$136a@grimsel.zurich.ibm.com> <328109CD.6685@concentric.net> content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII mime-version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.94) newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.smalltalk Date: 1996-11-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >>> "menio" == Anthony Menio writes: menio> On 18 Nov 1996, Piercarlo Grandi wrote: >>>>>> "menio" == Anthony Menio 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.