I agree with some of your points, andreas. I do think that latching on to terminology that is en vogue may be a factor but then again, isn't that often what sparks new ways of looking at things? Taking ideas from one field and exploring how they might apply to another? I'm not going to criticize the use of an "oop" approach to philosophy. I think its a very valid consideration within the context of the contemporary. Its intriguing but in all honesty, I'm not convinced that it will amount to much. As I said, isn't it just a repackaging of old arguments? Aren't we still faced with the question of how we define a shoe if I decide to use it to open a bottle of wine? In ooprogramming, objects are very clearly defined. They will absolutely not allow methods that haven't been assigned to them. When applied to philosophy, it sounds a bit like a return to constructivism, no? And if they try to say that their use of "object oriented" is entirely different, then we have to ask, "well, then why did you use that term if you didn't want the two to be compared?" But who knows where it may lead if we don't explore it? On Dec 30, 2011 3:53 PM, "IR3ABF" <aj...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> What should object oriented philosophy be about in an age where the > paradigmatic divide between object and subject is a long past station? > > To me it appears to be a rather 'subjective' way to connect a 'popular' > issue i.e. programming practices with a vague notion of 'philosophy' and > should not be taken too seriously > > Same goes for OOP as the 'only just' way to formalize current programming > techniques as it is just a way among others to 'look' at a certain field of > theoretical approaches to practical problems i.e. optimizing code, for we > have had before 'lineair coding', heuristic coding(spaghetti) and other > 'schools' of best practise > > During my training as software engineer early 90ties different > -commercialized and evangelized -methods were accentuated (RUP, Agile a.o.) > wheras during my mathematics and informatics studies - late 70ties, > beginning 80ties - more accent was given to 'result driven' approaches such > as assembler/compiler techniques > > Comparing these two, give rise to suspect that whatever is 'a la mode' > gets the most attention and followers, complete with a course/certification > industry to serve the corporate trendy attitude > > I never figured out althought on what premisses these paradigma shift were > grounded apart for the gain in 'time to market' and not in anyway based on > scientifically based decisions > > BTW have a look at my 'new' FB bashing program (written in js and php): > > http://apps.facebook.com/whathef-/ > > (FB login required) > > and have a look at the simple straightforward code, with a nice example of > using recursion in js - > > function vote(obj){ > ... > setTimeout("vote(obj)", 200), raises/lowers the percentages automatically > ... > } > > whereas with the following simple php code snippet the program is able to > track the ip nr's and eventually corresponding domains from every > visitor/user: > > fwrite($file,$REMOTE_ADDR) > > Currently I am working to gather all the public available information > about users/visitors to be logged using the 'Open Graph API' from FB, which > by the way is heavily structured around a object oriented coding 'view' > > In the making: a same kind of simple program to mess with the Dow > Jones/Euronext indices, just for the fun of subverting extremely > influential figures > > Andreas Maria Jacobs > w: <http://www.nictoglobe.com/>http://www.nictoglobe.com > w: <http://burgerwaanzin.nl/>http://burgerwaanzin.nl > > On Dec 30, 2011, at 19:23, Pall Thayer <pallt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is no question in my mind that object oriented philosophy is > > borne from and related to notions of object oriented programming. If > > we accept that, then it's interesting to see yet another way in which > > computer programming and code-concepts are permeating our contemporary > > culture. However, I'm not quite sure I see the point. It looks like > > they're essentially taking age-old philosophical concepts and > > considerations and putting them in a new wrapper. If nothing else then > > perhaps it will make it easier for programmers to understand some > > philosophical concepts. > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Yann Le Guennec <i...@x-arn.org> wrote: > > very confusing... > > > about the relation (or not) between Object Oriented Philosophy & Object > > Oriented Programming > > > http://www.bogost.com/blog/objectoriented_p.shtml > > > > > > > Le 30/12/2011 18:50, Rob Myers a écrit : > > On 30/12/11 17:10, Simon Biggs wrote: > > The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. > > > There are various different versions of OOP: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming > > > In particular, multimethod-based OOP doesn't require that objects own or > > contain the actions that can be performed upon them: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethod > > > And there are more modern programming paradigms than OOP: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigms > > > OOP is certainly still current in programming, but there are other > > programming paradigms that mesh better with the philosophy of > > mathematics at least. > > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > -- > > ***************************** > > Pall Thayer > > artist > > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > > ***************************** > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > Sent from my eXtended BodY > > On 30 dec. 2011, at 19:23, Pall Thayer <pallt...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is no question in my mind that object oriented philosophy is > borne from and related to notions of object oriented programming. If > we accept that, then it's interesting to see yet another way in which > computer programming and code-concepts are permeating our contemporary > culture. However, I'm not quite sure I see the point. It looks like > they're essentially taking age-old philosophical concepts and > considerations and putting them in a new wrapper. If nothing else then > perhaps it will make it easier for programmers to understand some > philosophical concepts. > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Yann Le Guennec <i...@x-arn.org> wrote: > > very confusing... > > > about the relation (or not) between Object Oriented Philosophy & Object > > Oriented Programming > > > http://www.bogost.com/blog/objectoriented_p.shtml > > > > > > > Le 30/12/2011 18:50, Rob Myers a écrit : > > On 30/12/11 17:10, Simon Biggs wrote: > > The programming dimension seems to be at the heart of the argument. > > > There are various different versions of OOP: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming > > > In particular, multimethod-based OOP doesn't require that objects own or > > contain the actions that can be performed upon them: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimethod > > > And there are more modern programming paradigms than OOP: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigms > > > OOP is certainly still current in programming, but there are other > > programming paradigms that mesh better with the philosophy of > > mathematics at least. > > > - Rob. > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > ***************************** > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
