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

mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org> wrote in message news:<40da162e$0$34762$e4fe514c_at_news.xs4all.nl>...

> 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.

In most projects I know, all are OO developers, even the DBA.

> > 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 was talking about the ones who talk with precision and the ones who play tricks using the same word with different meanings in the same sentence.

> > 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.

Complex, yes. Simple, yes. Dynamic, yes. Static, yes. Fuzzy, yes :)

> Fuzzy here is the blurring of semantics and pragmatics.
> The behavior is determined by the *use* (as opposed to *meaning*)

No, the behavior IS the manner in which something functions or operates.

www.dictionary.com

"Manner" and "something" are also fuzzy terms.

Types imply some behavior, although they are constant, variables imply some behavior, integrity constraints imply some behavior, derivation rules imply some behavior, operators imply some behavior, etc.

There is database behavior, application behavior, presentation behavior, user's behavior, good behavior, bad behavior and many other behaviors.

I don't see any usefulness in the term having a lot more precise terms like:
type, variable, value and operator. Probably the four key terms in computer language theory.

> > Yes if we have alternatives with only one meaning.
>
> Not if these disregard valuable notions.

What valuable notions "class" and "behavior" have that we can not find in the more precise terms?

> > We should help to reduce the number :)
>
> Of people using databases? ;-)

Of people confused due to the use of imprecise words.

> Well, yes. But IMHO there is an essential, (dynamic) notion
> getting lost if we use 'type' as a would-be synonym.

Can you clarify this?

When class means type it means type and nothing more.

Types have operators, and operators act on values, thus they have behavior :)

BTW "have" is an extremely ambiguous word :-)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=have

> So am I. Extending 'type' just blurs. It does not help.

We don't need any extension. Types have operators.

Regards
  Alfredo Received on Thu Jun 24 2004 - 14:21:08 CEST