Re: Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)



"Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:zberger-A7F0BE.00153011042008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <13uq9i0e2sfdd1a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:

< 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.
Some
people believe object orientation is a completely new "paradigm" for
programming. The best known paradigms for computer languages are these.

- Procedural languages: Fortran, C, Pascal
- Functional languages: Lisp, Scheme, Haskell
- Logic languages: Prolog
- Object-oriented languages: Java, Smalltalk, C++

The first three of these really use very different ways of thinking about
how
to program a computer. Object-oriented languages are mostly a gloss on
procedural languages.

The one part of object-orientation that really stands out, and might give
it
claim to being a separate "paradigm," is _polymorphism_.
-----

I think you have missed the lightbulb moment.

As "structure" is not an "object". Nor is a "procedure" a "method".


Amen to that :-)

An "object", in pure OO thought, is a bundle of zero or more structures
AND zero or more procedures together.


Yep... Amen again :-)

The important (to me...), and usually overlooked by people obsessed only
with coding, thing here is the CONCEPTUAL use you get from an Object. This
is BECAUSE it is as you described above. Identifying Objects conceptually
and building them in code go hand in hand in my book. I have never
considered Objects to be ONLY the "instantiation in memory of a defined
computer Class", even though that is all they are to a program. PEOPLE can
use Objects (conceptually) and can model with them, modify them, (without
committing any computer code to memory), do walkthroughs with them, and
conceptually juggle with them to get a better solution. That is just as
important in an Object Oriented approach to problem solution, as the
technical details which apply to computer code.

You can certainly use OO compilers to write procedural type code as you
describe -- or you can use procedural only compilers to write OO style
code as long as you enforce your the OO rules yourself.

Absolutely. The fact is that when you encapsulate behaviours and properties
into an Object, the synergistic whole, is far greater than the sum of its
parts. The code representation is only ONE aspect of it.

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 ... people believe object orientation is a completely new "paradigm" for ... programming. ... The best known paradigms for computer languages are these. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
    ... Why did the originators of object orientation rename "structures" to ... people believe object orientation is a completely new "paradigm" for ... programming. ... The best known paradigms for computer languages are these. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Why is OO Popular?
    ... >> Children understand certain things behave in certain ways. ... >> using object oriented languages. ... becoming more and more distributed and the object paradigm has very good ... 'complex systems', where you have to almost embrace complexity to an extent. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Alexandre Bergel <bergel@iam.unibe.ch>
    ... A very few of new languages are module-based. ... I suspect this is because OO provides for modularization at several ... responsibilities) and operations. ... > and not to replace the object paradigm. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: State of Forth 200x
    ... The only way your statement makes any sense is if you limit the discussion to "pure" object orientated languages ... This nutty notion you have that object orientation is an all-or-nothing proposition simply doesn't match reality. ... With every message, you keep on ascribing all sorts of weird, magical, and wrong ideas about object oriented programming. ... In the real world there are no hierarchies. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)