Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: Robert Martin <>
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" <> 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?

The two elements of the pair are tuples. One is input, and the other is output. The input tuple can be viewed as the values of fields or instance variables of an object prior to the call. The output tuple can be viewed as the values of the instance variables after the call.

Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob)  | email:
Object Mentor Inc.            | blog:
The Agile Transition Experts  | web:
800-338-6716                  |
Received on Sun Jun 11 2006 - 21:38:38 CEST

Original text of this message