Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

From: Ja Lar <jalar_at_nomail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:18:08 +0100
Message-ID: <cnc9i1$klu$1@news.net.uni-c.dk>

"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne_at_acm.org> .... Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "Ja Lar" <ingen_at_mail.her> wrote:

>>

> > "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.

>
> Ah, but the problem is that those are all virtually equally legitimate
> answers as to what OO "means."

Not if you claim to be able to compare eg. classes and relations. That is one of mr. Gittens main points.
If you state that "class=type" or "class<>relation", you have to pick a definition and stick to it, or you statement becomes meaningless.

And no, they are not all virtually equally legitimate. In fact, OO has matured to a level where "class" and "object" is fairly well understood on a fundamental and agreeable way. Not in the same strict mathematical sense as relations, but beyond the ridicule that is used when real argument fails. Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 01:18:08 CST