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

• Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

[Quoted] "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:40dfec0f.743839_at_news.wanadoo.es...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 21:42:21 +0200, mAsterdam <mAsterdam_at_vrijdag.org>
> wrote:

> >If you look closer at anything it becomes fuzzy.
> There are big differences among some terms and others.
> Mathematical terms are precise. It is a good idea to use them.

Even the mathematical terms are fuzzy sometimes :-)

> For instance: to use value instead of object when object means value,
> to use type instead of class when class means type, etc.

> IMO class is acceptable when it means "reference type".

How about using this:
- types and operators when refering to values and operations with values. - class and methods when refering to variables and operations *with* variables.

> >> I don't see any usefulness in the term having a lot more precise terms
> >> like:
> >
> >What makes them more precise?

> The mathematical rigour and the test of time.
Mathematics has rigour only when one stay inside Mathematics and doesn't try to apply it.

> >> type, variable, value and operator. Probably the four key terms in
> >> computer language theory.

> >, flow
> This is only about procedural languages.

Usually only the flow of instructions is associated with procedural languages. :-)

> > assignment
> A particular operation.

A particularly important operation. :-)

> >, token, symbol, ( and ).
> keywords and tokens are symbols, all languages have symbols.

All languages are made from symbols.

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

> >Your question is distracting.

> My point is: we can avoid the use of terms like: "class", "object",
> "behavior", "method", "message to an object", etc. without any lose.

Let's then place a warning: "If you use such words, be prepared to explain what they mean".

> What is the essence of OO?

Oh, the essence - such an archaic word ... :-) How could one obtain the essence ? :-)
It's what is left after everything is gone. :-)

> In the opinion of some authors the essence of OO is that in some
> circumstances the compiler creates jump tables for us: the "virtual
> method table".

See above :-)

> >I would not like to see them replaced by
> >even more people who can't describe what
> >they see for lack of words.

> We can describe all about OO with the classic CS terms.

Yes, but I think we need some shortcuts. We aren't going to explain OO each time we need to talk using OO concepts.  Just once in this glossary :-)

I also suggest this entry:
[OO]
1) other orthogonal (not orthogonadic :-) 2) object oriented
2' eggs :-) (for making pizza :-)

> I never heard about communicators.
You are a communicator. :-)

http://www.accesscom.com/~darius/writings/language-ranking.html http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html

http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/co-tmline/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/

http://www.dekorte.com/Actors/Chart.html http://www.erights.org/history/actors.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperCard

> >> When class means type it means type and nothing more.
> >Indeed. Not very useful, and not how the terms are used.

> Type is the most common use for class.
This depends on what meaning do you use for type. You mean Type as in c.d.theory glossary ? If yes, do you know of any published belivable statistic on this ? :-)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

• Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=