Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)



"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13ur5tg3con5ja4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:65553nF2cjsrhU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13uq9i0e2sfdd1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

< http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jrs/4/lec/14 >
-----
Why did the originators of object orientation rename "structures" to
"objects"
and "procedures" to "methods"? Hubris and arrogance, in my opinion.

This simply says that the writer has not really understood the essential
differences. I read the full article and he/she does a good job of
listing
the differences, but identifying differences and actually understanding
the
implications of those differences are two different things.

The comment above implies that the commentator sees no difference between
a
"structure" and an "object", yet anyone who has worked with these things
in
the real world would understand the essential difference. This is the
difference between Acadaemia and Reality.

H'm! Structure, in procedural, is accessed through a pointer.
Object, in object-based, is accessed through a reference.
Object, in object-oriented, is accessed through a reference;
but also holds a "vtable" to accommodate inheritance and
polymorphism.

The essential difference seems to be the extension of the
structure to add the "vtable" making the object a bigger
structure.

You are looking only at the mechanics of an implementation. The conceptual
use of objects is WAY more important. But you only come to appreciate that
when you start using them for systems in the real world, and not just to
describe some academic argument.

Whether objects implement inheritance through a vtable or not is completely
irrelevant to the use of objects. For you, an object is just a structure in
memory; for me, it is much more than that. I visualise objects as
representing a real world entity and having attributes and behaviours that a
structure alone can never have. Perhaps it comes down to imagination and
vision.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
    ... Why did the originators of object orientation rename "structures" to ... This simply says that the writer has not really understood the essential ... Object, in object-based, is accessed through a reference. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Why Are Soap Opera Characters Secret Pasts So Easily Forgotten?
    ... but imagine how large it would become if it had to hold ... > every reference / item of importance for every character currently in ... It'd take a "lifetime" for a new writer ... > bother. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: what counts or what count
    ... I don't know why the writer used "what count" here. ... Here is the context for your reference. ... Take care, ... It depends on whether the reference is to a singular or plural object ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Celts and human sacrifices
    ... gnenian wrote: ... not see any reference to unusual arrangements of human remains. ... The writer of the article at this site badly needed a proof reader. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)