--- In [email protected], William Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [This was supposed to go out earlier today but I had a problem with > the network service at my hotl ... if only they had a network > object ;-) Only messing with you ;-)] > > I'm sorry Keith but I can't agree with point 2 at all. Some business > people think in terms like OO (without knowing it's OO) but many > business people do think procedurally. There are many programmers > that think procedurally but quite a lot of brilliant OO programmers. > > As you pointed out earlier there are many people on this list that > can influence the way these things get done. I assure you many many > many of them became quite brilliant at OO and don't find it that hard > at all. > > The fallacy is that the there are no procedures in real life. And > that both OO and procedural are somehow orthogonal. As I pointed out > earlier the world is quite often a mixture of both. And so is OO - a > method is just a sequence (or procedure) of statements. And this > happens in the large too - banks and other businesses have lots of > "procedures". > > Also consider this: though there are several ways to model for > example an Envelope I bet you that most people would but a method on > it called getAddress() (and probably a writeAddress()), or some > similar semantic. Even though an Envelope is a very passive object. > The idea that you might put this method on a Person object and have > the Address on an Envelope as public might be more semantically > correct in the real world but I don't know many OO patterns that > would bother to attempt it this way. A Person object would just get > way to bloated. We tend to put these actions on the object (grammar) > rather than the subject even when the object is inanimate. So to > assume that "OO" is somehow a perfect way to model the world is not > correct. > > I know that as I finish this out someone will have found a pattern > somewhere that does this the other way ;-) > > Also there were a lot of OO people in the early days of OO that had > quite awful OO patterns. Many people latched on to these early > patterns and never forgot them. E.g. passing an object by value all > over the place - which people do all the time - ans some languages > promote! In the real world it's true that objects move around but > people use references all the time too. (This point does help your > point about bad programmers ;-) So perhaps the truth is closer to > yours - but not all those schooled in OO think it's harder to think > this way. > > Okay bring on the objections and the patterns ;-) > > Actually I think I'll say no more on this thread and give some others > a chance. > > William > > On Oct 6, 2006, at 5:05 AM, Keith Harrison-Broninski wrote: > > > There are 2 fallacies here. > > > > That semantic richness introduced via techniques such as domain- > > specific languages can only be done procedurally. In fact, the > > opposite is true. Knowledge management techniques such as > > ontologies are based directly on object concepts. > > That OO thinking is somehow "harder" than procedural thinking. > > Bizarrely, the only people who find this are programmers. Business > > people, as I have tried to explain, naturally think in OO terms. > > -- > > > > All the best > > Keith > > > > http://keith.harrison-broninski.info
+1 to William's comments. Just to support William's thoughts, you can find the link below about "why objects have failed". http://www.dreamsongs.com/ObjectsHaveFailedNarrative.html Apologies in advance, if this link has already been mentioned before in this forum. Throughout the years, I've not met more than a few business people who can explain the things in terms of "real world objects". I humbly think that even they do, these are only quite simple objects. However, "OO (Object ORIENTATION)" does not merely mean to explain the real world in terms of only simple objects. How about the object interactions? Those interactions having gen-specs and polymorphic derivations that can lead to represent complex business processes? I also believe that people mindset is still more procedure-oriented than "any other thing"-oriented. That is why even Model-Driven attempts are in search of contemporary techniques bypassing the OO for Platform Specific Models (PSM) though OMG is encouraging the OO and UML so much. That is why Feature-Oriented Development techniques (FDD and FOP) are also looking for something more abstract to describe the features in business problem domains. That is why Domain Specific approaches are trying not to restrict the representation of business domain problems only with OO specific languages. Semih Cetin http://www.cybersoft.com.tr/english/cybersoft/m-semihcetin.html Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
