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:
On 8/29/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote:
On 8/28/2013 7:52 PM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Here is the important part: "Each object can be viewed as an
independent
"machine" with a distinct role or responsibility.".
Nothing forbid to do that in C. I took the example of the SDL,
previously. Does not it really match to that phrase?
When I use SDL in a C++ program, I create 1 class with a constructor
which call SDL_CreateSurface, while the destructor calls
SDL_FreeSurface. I simply use the automated RAII stuff, which is the
feature C lacks. Well... at least, in C, you can use RAII, by hand. Not
only with Java or C#, or at least, not as easily (those languages are
designed to use a garbage collector...can be useful sometimes.).
It is not a "machine". It is an object. That's why it is called Object
Oriented Programming.
Well. We of the "firm assertions" disposition often fall fatally to
... firm assertions.
Jerry, perhaps you might soften your insistence that others use
"JERRY'S DEFITION" as THE ONLY TRUE DEFINITION OF THIS COMPUTERY
TERM!!!
That is not MY definition. It is the definition put forth by recognized
experts in OO programming such as Booch, Rumbaugh and Stroustrup. If
you want to argue definitions, I suggest you argue with them.
How warm and encouraging would it be if you had instead said something
like "I would prefer that the term object were not conflated with
'machine' for the following reasons ..."
Maybe to you. I follow the experts' definitions.
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.
Regards,
Zenaan
"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.
And a machine is not a real-world object?
All machines are objects. But not all objects are machines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good luck,
Zenaan
I just go by what recognized experts say - not some yoyo who puts up a
web page.
If you want to use the correct terminology, you should be reading
recognized experts in the field.
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/526b2589.3090...@attglobal.net
