On 10/25/2013 10:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 10/26/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/25/2013 9:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On 10/26/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote:
On 10/25/2013 8:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Anyway, from an onlookers perspective you are being excessively
pedantic and hung up on different terms which are simply intended to
convey some meaning - and you have done so without saying _why_
'machine' is a 'bad' term to use to describe the properties of an
'object' in OOP.
"Machine" is a bad term because it is not "Machine Oriented
Programming". It is "Object Oriented Programming" - because it emulates
real world objects - not machines.
Here I should have said thank you for providing your reason.
Sorry I came across a bit harsh - but I'm tired of "experts" who have
maybe read a couple of pages on the internet and think they know
everything about OOP, but have never written any REAL OO code (even
though they claim they have). Thinks like not using encapsulation
because "it's work to write all of those setters and getters", only
validating the contents of the object when it is stored in a database
(what if it's used to make decisions before being stored - or isn't
stored at all, as a business object?) or claiming you can do inheritance
and/or polymorphism in C. Most of these "experts" have limited
experience in database (i.e. FoxPro, DBase) or web (usually PHP)
programming. And unfortunately, some of these people have put up web
pages, promoting these misunderstanding which others use in their
arguments.
The one thing they have in common is none of them have worked with a
real OO language such as SmallTalk or Java (they may have worked with
C++, but they use it more as a functional programming language rather
than use the OO features).
I don't claim to be an expert in the field, but I have been doing OO
since the mid 80's, starting with SmallTalk. And I learned from real
experts - reading their books and attending forums where they were
speaking. I've also worked on several large projects over the years,
both as a programmer and a project manager.
And a machine is not a real-world object?
All machines are objects. But not all objects are machines.
I agree.
Are you saying that I should refrain from using the term "machine" as
an analogy to help explain OOP, because some "recognized experts" did
not use that term?
Only if you don't want to look like an idiot. People who make up their
own terms for something most of the rest of the world accept look that way.
Oh.
Dear me.
Guess I better just stick to Object then. Don't want to look like an
idiot. I shall submit myself to most of the rest of the world's
acceptance.
I guess I should appreciate that you are trying to stop some of us
from looking like idiots. There is possibly some worth in that
intention. I however be not tooo worried about others' think ... can
lead to certain - unproductive? - outcomes.
Another thing I see often is people misusing terms - it's quite common
and I get pretty tired of that end, also. I'm not a purist, but one
thing I've found when working on large projects - it is very important
that *everyone* use the same terminology and *everyone* understand what
that terminology means. When people start using other terms it rapidly
leads to a dangerous lack of communications - or worse yet,
miscommunication.
Besides, my point is not to attack "object" as being a useful term nor
to attack "object" as being the preferred/accepted/sanctioned term.
Can you see my point?
Nope.
</shrug> Someone's loss?
No, I just don't see the point you're trying to make.
My point was simply that "machine" is (in my opinion, and evidently in
the opinions of others), useful to help describe or explain OOP.
As I said before - not all objects are machines.
True. Very true. I agree. I really do agree.
I did not ask you if machine was the best term. I humbly disagree with
you, if what you are saying is that "machine" is a bad term to help
describe or teach the "object" part of OOP to those trying to
understand it.
Feel free to disagree. You're the one not using the commonly recognized
terminology, not me.
I wrote an article back in the day for my university newsletter, using
a tree as an analogy to explain Objects - I did have much to learn,
but in hindsight, machine, or engine, would likely have been a better
analogy. I think I was trying to point out that _anything_ can be
modeled as an Object.
Anyway, as long as there's a good crucifixion under way for crimes
against terminology ... popcorn anyone?
Differences in terminology lead to differences in understanding. This
leads to miscommunication.
Terminology junkies are welcome to their terms. Some on this list have
graciously ceded to _your_ preferred terms, in an endeavour to attempt
to maintain actual communication. I think that is a wise thing.
I just go by what recognized experts say - not some yoyo who puts up a
web page.
If you were to put some sincere effort in attempting to explain
something, and you used a term other than the primary sanctioned term,
I would not consider you a yoyo, nor stupid, etc, but would consider
your attempt genuine, to use additional terms to assist in the
listeners understanding of your point.
There is a difference between using different terms and misusing terms.
For instance, in the case of general terms such as "Object", I have
found it much more effective to use real world examples such as "Ball"
and "Can of Dog Food" than other general terms. I think "Machine" is
particularly bad because it is a very limited case of "Object", and can
lead to misunderstandings as indicated above (i.e. a "Ball" is not a
"Machine" so it can't be emulated, except it can).
Please note I'm not calling YOU a yoyo - but as I indicated above, there
are too many of them who have put up web pages that are not only
misleading but just plain wrong.
However, for an "encyclopaedia" I think that is a useful approach you
have. Say, I seem to remember there's a wikipedia page or two on OOP
that could really use a little of your expert love on this matter...
Which will just lead to more arguments. I use Wikipedia for things like
"what's the capital of Zambia", or "who wrote "Who wrote Fahrenheit
451", but that's about it. There are too many opinion pieces in it.
If you want to use the correct terminology, you should be reading
recognized experts in the field.
Each human, like it or not, is the authority regarding their own intentions.
This list is about communication, sometimes even related to Debian.
The job of experts, teachers, and those who wish to raise the quality
of discourse, ought be to discern and assist in the teasing out of the
communication intents of others on this list, preferably in a
supportive and encouraging manner.
Good luck
Zenaan
I do try that - however, as I said before, the same old arguments from
people who have no real experience in OO get old real fast.
Jerry
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/526bc36c.6020...@attglobal.net
