Rather than attempt a definition, per se, consider when and where you
can observe differences between OO and say procedural programming.
At the level of post compilation / interpretation instructions -
none, can't be.
At the level of a single statement or expression - very minimal,
syntax and idiom.
At the level of a collection of statements (program) - far fewer
lines of code (order of magnitude or more), no explicit loop
constructs,
zero case statements, no nested-IF statements, very few IF
statements at all, no type declarations, etc.
At the level of modularization - very different distribution of code
across a set of objects than across a set of modules, no
"centralized control" (master control module, main routine,
etc.).
At the level of conceptualization - major differences in how objects
are identified and specified. Complete absence of "data" -
Everything is an object!
davew
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 10:13:19 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Well, for the knowledgeably ignorant among us... what the heck is
> 'object oriented' programming anyway. All the code looks like code to
> me, and other than having a few more sub-routines I don't understand the
> purpose or design of... what's changed other than standardizing a few
> protocols across platforms?
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
> > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 4:06 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: ABM
> >
> >
> > Douglas Roberts wrote:
> > > I still can't help but feeling that in general, *way* too many words
> > > are being used to describe ABM (and IBM) methodologies. The
> > > underlying concept of object-oriented software design as
> > the basis for
> > > ABM simulation architecture is just so straight forward and
> > intuitive
> > > that I am repeatedly amazed at how people continue to make
> > such a big,
> > > mysterious deal out of it.
> > For some reason many ABM enthusiasts feel the need to introduce basic
> > programming and computer science to their peers in their own peculiar
> > and impoverished language.
> > Why OOP gets embraced in particular completely baffles me and
> > much of it
> > is inappropriate for modeling. (e.g. rigid inheritance) I
> > suspect it
> > has to do with the need many perceive to learn and use toolkits.
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
