Re: An object-oriented network DBMS from relational DBMS point of view

On Mar 18, 3:05 am, "Drago Ganic" <dga..._at_vodatel.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> I do not agrre with the definition "instance of ADT" = object." nor do I
> think that object is not well defined.
>
> Look up the book "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (SICP
> for short) by Ableson and Sussman.
>
> The right name for "instance of type (or ADT)" is *value* and not *object*.

SICP is a hardly a reference on OOP.

My suspicion was that SICP didn't contain a single mention of OOP, so I thought I'd check. Turns out I was wrong: there is exactly one reference, in a footnote on page 200 (2nd ed.) Excerpt:

"... a variety of inadequate ontological theories have been embodied in a plethora of correspondingly inadequate programming languages. For example, much of the complexity of object-oriented programming languages--and the subtle and confusing differences among contemporary object-oriented languages--centers on the treatment of generic operations on interrelated types."

> On the other hand, I don't think that object is (so) vague defined. Its
> definition includes identity and state that can be changed (like a classical
> typed variable from the above example).

My take on the well-definedness of the term "object" is slightly different than Bob's. I would say that in fact, the term "object" is quite well defined--in a number of different places, each with a different way. The C++ standard has one, the Java Language Spec has one, the Smalltalk standard has one, etc. Each is well defined. The problem is that they don't agree.

Marshall Received on Sun Mar 18 2007 - 18:18:47 CET