Re: c.d.theory glossary 0.0.1

From: mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:48:27 +0200
Message-ID: <408c4042$0$13292$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>

Dawn M. Wolthuis wrote:

> mAsterdam wrote:

>>...Not:
>>---------------

>
> A minor comment, but I had to look several times to see whether this was
> supposed to be Note: and I don't think that a title is required for this
> comment. If you need a title, then "This is Not" might be helpful to the
> reader.

Ok.

>>...[Class]
>>A class is what provides a name and a place for
>>the abstract behavior of a set of objects
>>said to belong to the class. (Larry Wall, Apocalypse 12)
>>

>
> I don't care for this definition, preferring that we have "A class is a "
> something. This is a weakly written definition, it seems to me. It doesn't
> look like it would help clear up Date's confusion on the term, for example.

Could you elaborate on the confusion, please? Not necessarily for the glossary,
but ... well just curious.

> If we don't agree on what a class is, then several definitions would be
> better than something so vague, in my opinion. Is a class a software
> component?

Other definitons are welcome, of course, but what's unclear about this one?
I would prefer not to import
all "software component" connotations.

>>[Function]
>>...

>
>
> These two are identical, except in the words used, and I suspect we could
> pick one. I think the second is a little less easy to follow as you might
> be trying to figure out where the many-to-one is, especially since we are
> using that term to describe a single relation rather than a relationship
> between two relations. So, I'd pick the first and then add to it the next
> sentence:

It would be easier if you'ld just write something cut&pastable. Not just because I'm lazy (I am) but because it's the faster road to quality content. This goes for everybody else too, of course.

> "A purpose or use"
> "A subroutine, procedure, or method in software"
Ok.

> just a comment that, of course, 4 is the same def as 1, but indicates
> synonyms within the software world, thereby providing examples of the word
> "function" So, you might want to have two defs, the 1st with synonyms
> within s/w development and the 3rd, which is how the word is often used in
> English. Alternatively, putting the English use last might help, rather
> than splitting the more similar defs. I disagree that "function" is such a
> difficult word -- it is likely one of the easiest of these to get a def of.
>
> 5. I think this is 1 again, but it is worth stating that every "operator" is
> a function (where the domain for the function is a set of couples).
Yep.

>>...
>>"It isn't the things we don't know that give us trouble.
>>It's the things we know that ain't so." - Will Rogers

>
> ... I also miss your "Rows by any other name" quote at
> the top of the glossary, but I guess that
> is a matter of taste.

No. It was deleted per quotee request.

>>[Object]
>>1. Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.
>>2. Model of an entity, characterised by behaviour and state. (ISO)

>
>
> Neither of these hits the sweet spot, methinks. I'm guessing that often
> when we are talking about an object, it relates to something that can be
> stored in digital form. The first def let's us make the elephant an object,
> as well as the VHS tape. I'm sure there are times when we will use this
> term in this "English language" way. I would put that def last, however and
> start with ISO and then put something in that relates to what people are
> more likley to mean when they state "then store this object" or "persist the
> object" or "serialize the object" or "reference for the object".

This is a very interesting and important topic in itself. I hope to go into it later. For starters: objects(2) behave. Stored things do not behave.

>>[Domain]

>
> I'll give it a weak start, just to help people jump in

Thank you. I'll wait for now.

>>Milestones? For the glossary I prefer inch-pebbles. Received on Sun Apr 25 2004 - 17:48:27 CDT