Re: Help Constructing Fictional Cross-Religious Movement

In article <4310FD2A.7000109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Ah, see, now we wrap back to the original topic of the thread: my claim
>is that this particular point ought to have been the central and obvious
>feature of the explanation of "what's an object?"
>
>I completely agree that everything before that is fundamentally not new
>stuff. The problem, I think, is that the people who write the books
>tend to have their thinking so firmly in "objects" that they forget that
>this is a crucial distinction, and tend to think it's already implied by
>the "a set of data and functions that access the data" -- which it very
>obviously isn't!
>
>(And I admit to having fallen into that trap a bit in my own
>explanations earlier in the thread. Apologies for that!)
>
>Perhaps one could better define objects as "a set of data and functions
>that access that data, thought of in a way that makes it seem completely
>obvious that one could arbitrarily define multiple independent instances
>of the object that have the same functions but different data." :)
>
>In any case, that's why I was strongly disagreeing with the "an object
>is just a function" claim -- it seems to omit this multiple-instances
>capability, which I consider a crucial piece of what an object is.

It is moderately likely that anyone well enough versed in OO to teach
or write about the subject has forgotten that distinction--and tehrein
lies the rub.

For ease of expltianation, perhaps it could be given as "an object is
just a subroutine in a language that implicitly makes multiple independent
copies of local storage and allows access to the different copies by named
reference as an obligatory feature of the language."

--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA

My dime, my opinions.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Word 2003 VB IDE & VB2005
    ... For a good explanation of this, ... Visual Studio Magazine - Guest Opinion - Office and .NET: ... Very little, if anything, has changed in the language since the ... The most recent one I enjoyed was "Professional Excel ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.general)
  • Re: consciousness, was Re: etc.
    ... What constitutes an explanation? ... been writing in a foreign language. ... The basics of conditioning are simple and trivial. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Darwins principle of divergence - Tautology
    ... so that the Samarin and Goodman explanations do not apply. ... linguists can transcribe my language but seem to terrified ... I would not count that as an explanation, ... Language not used to communicate between people - and the research amongst the Pentacostians shows that they do not understand each other either - is not a language that linguistics can say much about. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Man-eaters
    ... evolution that are much easier to explain; ... the FORM of the explanation ... The only form I employ is that of natural selection. ... Whereas complex language has evolved ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Help Constructing Fictional Cross-Religious Movement
    ... subroutine-with-saved-data thing as a pattern that can be replicated ad infinitum (and share the same function code without sharing the same saved data) as if it were simply a data type declaration. ... of the language and clearly very useful. ... The problem, I think, is that the people who write the books tend to have their thinking so firmly in "objects" that they forget that this is a crucial distinction, and tend to think it's already implied by the "a set of data and functions that access the data" -- which it very obviously isn't! ... Perhaps one could better define objects as "a set of data and functions that access that data, thought of in a way that makes it seem completely obvious that one could arbitrarily define multiple independent instances ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
Loading