Re: c.d.theory glossary -- definition of "class"

mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:<40d9d21b$0$566$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>...

> > Most times it is a type.
>
> This is the us vs them explanation.
> 'us' (relational) database redefining the world,

No, this is 'us' the "serious" people trying to translate the charlatans' pap into something whith a minimum of precision and rigour.

> them OO developers who don't even get their central
> concepts clear.

I am an OO developer, and I want to have my central concepts clear. I had big problems in the past when I confused everything following the charlatans.

> This does not help understanding across
> paradigmatic boundaries at all.
> On the contrary, it demarcates.

It demarcates the serious guys and the charlatans.  

> Behavior is a central aspect to OO. Any respectful
> description of the term class should include behavior.

Behavior is a very informal and fuzzy term. The behavior is determined by the semantics of the operators. This is a term we should drop in formal contexts.

> So let's abolish all terms that have more meanings?

Yes if we have alternatives with only one meaning.

> There won't be many words left.

A good thing :)  

> The term is used. It is used by a lot of people who use databases.

We should help to reduce the number :)

> It is used in relation to the use of databases.
> It is important to have an understanding of what is meant
> when 'class' is used in the context of databases.

Many things. That's the problem.

> Somebody who strikes it from the vocabulary simply won't
> hear what is said when the term is used.

I want to know what is intended to be said, that's why I ask for more precise terms.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Wed Jun 23 2004 - 18:09:16 CDT