Re: OOPs! James is confused again!
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:24:53 GMT
Message-ID: <FLKO8.208441$cQ3.7130_at_sccrnsc01>
Bad example Hermaphrodites usually are sterile.
(things and concepts are different - one is physical and another is logical)
Jim
"James" <jraustin1_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6e74506.0206140540.3ba944_at_posting.google.com...
> > > An object represents a thing:
> > > the concept of a Marble, Marble1, Marble2, etc.
> > > An object (Marble) creates instances (M1, M2)
> > > via its instantiate function.
> > > An instance (M1) is an object that has a class (Marble)
> > > which it determines via its classify function.
> > > A class (Marble) is an object that has an instance (M1).
> >
> > An object represents a thing.
> > An object create objects with some arbitrary function.
> > An object is an object that has a object which it determines via some
other
> > abitrary function.
> > An object is an object that has an object.
> >
> > Oh, yeah! That's useful!!!
>
> I submit that substituting the word "object" for
> "class" and "instance" results in sentences that are not equivalent to
> the original. While classes and instances are objects, the word object
> does not encode the implied relationship to other objects that class
> and instance do.
>
> I submit a parallel example, demonstrating the loss of information:
> Note: Assume John is a hermaphrodite.
>
> A person(John) can have children (Mary, Sue).
> A child (Mary) is a person that has a parent(John).
> A parent(John) is a person that has a child (Mary).
>
> A person(John) can have persons (Mary, Sue).
> A person(Mary) is a person that has a person (John).
> A person(John) is a person that has a person (Mary).
>
> I may be occassionally confused but "my" object model isn't.
> Can you confuse "my" object model?
Received on Sat Jun 15 2002 - 19:24:53 CEST