Re: Objects and Relations

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.

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

> > "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.

> "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.

Regards Received on Fri Feb 23 2007 - 12:41:13 CET