Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
From: Robert Martin <unclebob_at_objectmentor.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:38:38 +0200
Message-ID: <2006061121383842612-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
>
> Function is a set of ordered pairs such that a certain condition is
> met. Where is "object" in this definition?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:38:38 +0200
Message-ID: <2006061121383842612-unclebob_at_objectmentorcom>
On 2006-06-01 18:08:23 +0200, "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com> said:
>
> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 02:50:54 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >> >>> I'm afraid your confusing OO (ie: *object* oriented) with >>> "class-oriented" (like in Java). In a "true OO language", *everything* >>> is an object. So functions are objects too. So functions are first-order. >> >> I don't think it could be consistent to have everything an object. Though >> it is possible to have object corresponding to functions.
>
> Function is a set of ordered pairs such that a certain condition is
> met. Where is "object" in this definition?
-- Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob) | email: unclebob_at_objectmentor.com Object Mentor Inc. | blog: www.butunclebob.com The Agile Transition Experts | web: www.objectmentor.com 800-338-6716 |Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 21:38:38 CEST