Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

From: Ja Lar <ingen_at_mail.her>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:28:36 +0100
Message-ID: <4199036c$0$209$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>

"Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> ...

<snip>

> Tuples are objects, relations are objects, classes are objects,
> variables are objects, operators are objects, I am an object,
> everything is an object.
>
> A good definition of object is this:
>
> Object: Something intelligible or perceptible by the mind.

With such a definition you exclude yourself from commenting on what OO means.
For you it obviously means everything, i.e. in fact nothing in particular.

Now, if an OO-addicted mixes relations, tables and classes you bash him. But he might have another definition of a relation than you do ...

It is certainly true that "relation" is much, much better and more unambiguous defined than "class" and "object". But quite a few knows a difference between class, object, operator, relation etc., even if you apparently don't (accept such a distinction).

> He also misses the point about the identity of the objects.
How? And what do you mean by "objects" here? Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 13:28:36 CST