Re: The Foundation of OO (XDb)

> What positive ends do you aspire to meet by confusing your vocabulary?
> Everybody already knows that object = instance of a class. No need to get
> īnto any debates over *that*...
>
> If you would like some term for some thingy inbetween objects and classes
> (although for the life of me I can't understand what you would want that
> thing to be) then why not invent a new word for it instead of trying to
> reuse terms that we are all already very familiar with the semantics of?

IF "my" model of an object is more correct, (www.xdb1.com/Obj.asp) then I would be correcting, not confusing, the current conventional oo vocabulary. I believe the current oo model is not orthogonal. I am proposing it should be. I realize this a paradigm shift (for most).

The objects I am trying to describe efficiently are objects before a class and after instances, not in between. Since they are essentially the same as class and instances, I believe there is no need to create new terminology. The current terminogoly already implies the existing orthogonality, we just haven't fully realized it. Received on Thu Jun 13 2002 - 23:57:11 CDT