Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 23, 8:41 pm, "Alfredo Novoa" <alfred..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 feb, 06:48, "David BL" <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > "Object instance" might mean value.
>
> > Not a chance. Good OO programmers limit themselves to the definition
> > by authors like Booch: objects must be part of the abstract machine
> > and encapsulate identity, state and behavior.
>
> Good programmers don't pay attention to charlatans like Booch.
>
> This definition is profoundly fuzzy, messy, unscientific and
> unprofessional, but it is a (very clumsy) description of a variable.

I don't disagree, assuming that variable is defined without need for a binding back to a name in the source code.

I think it's clumsy because there is an attempt (perhaps foolish) to weaken its association with the underlying hardware.

> There are object variables and object values, but most OO programmers
> use the term "object" for both.

Curious. I haven't experienced that myself.

>
> > > "Object" is synonymous with
> > > "instance" so "object instance" is redundant.
>
> > Yes.
>
> Two different words for one term causes confusion and one word for
> many terms causes more confusion.
>
> > > Because it is a sloppy term for sloppy thinkers.
>
> > I take it you're not a fan of OO.
>
> I do OO programming for a living, but I am not a big fan of messy and
> sloppy thinking.

I think everyone agrees it would be nice to have more precise terms.

> > "Variable" is not an option because many languages have an
> > incompatible meaning for that term.
>
> The "object" term is so overloaded that it means virtually anything.
> One of the most commons uses of "object" means a special kind of
> variable.
Received on Fri Feb 23 2007 - 23:44:44 CET