Re: c.d.theory glossary -- definition of "class"
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 01:45:49 +0200
Message-ID: <40da162e$0$34762$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>
Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>>>Most times it is a type.
> mAsterdam wrote
>>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.
Ah :-) count me in.
>>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.
Well, I am not an OO developer (anymore), but I have
to deal with OO developers and DBA's,
and I very much feel the same way.
>>This does not help understanding across >>paradigmatic boundaries at all. >>On the contrary, it demarcates.
>
> It demarcates the serious guys and the charlatans.
Here we differ.
I think you are overreacting. The use of the word 'class'
does not make you a charlatan.
I'ld almost say the putting it on a blindspot would -
but I won't. I don't think you are a charlatan :-)
>>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.
Complex, yes. Dynamic, yes. Fuzzy, no.
Fuzzy here is the blurring of semantics and pragmatics.
The behavior is determined by the *use* (as opposed to *meaning*)
of the operators. It is the pragmatics, not the semantics (meaning).
In formal contexts dealing with data at least this distinction
should be clear.
>>So let's abolish all terms that have more meanings?
>
> Yes if we have alternatives with only one meaning.
Not if these disregard valuable notions.
>>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 :)
Of people using databases? ;-)
>>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.
Well, yes. But IMHO there is an essential, (dynamic) notion getting lost if we use 'type' as a would-be synonym.
>>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.
So am I. Extending 'type' just blurs. It does not help. Received on Thu Jun 24 2004 - 01:45:49 CEST