Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 23, 1:02 pm, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfred..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 feb, 15:17, "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree object is a vague term. But I used it to help DavidBL and OO
> > thinkers make sense of RM (trying to relate what they know to RM).
>
> It does not make sense to try to clarify things using nebulous terms.
I try to relate to terms that the person I communicate with, uses, not what I would *prefer* him to use, even if the terminology I use is the most *adequate*

> > I
> > prefer to use the term *class* in comparing OO terms to RM terms.
>
> Another vague term. Class is often used as a synonym of type but it is
> also used with other meanings like: the definition of a type or
> "entity".
>
> > In
> > such sense, a class is not the same as a class instantiation. (I have
> > to admit I am not very familiar with all OO subtleties)
>
> Of course, a class instantiation is a variable or a value. Although it
> makes more sense when it means value.
Agreed.

> > > >Why would one say "object" when one means
> > > > "variable" ?
> > > Because it is a sloppy term for sloppy thinkers.
>
> > Maybe, but insulting the thinkers won't encourage them to use a better
> > terminology
>
> I disagree.
Then we should agree to disagree on that. I do not believe attitudes based on insulting others can in any way promote knowledge well intended or not.

> >(namely RM terminology).
>
> Type, value, variable and operator are not RM terminology, they are
> the four key concepts of imperative programming. People like Dijkstra
> and Knuth are not RM guys but they use good terminology.
Sure.
Before being computing related, these terms are primarily mathematically defined. What is specific to RM are use relations to represents set of facts.
> Regards
Received on Fri Feb 23 2007 - 13:44:19 CET