Re: Whose Fish?
- From: AndyW <a@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:58:34 +1200
On 9 May 2007 22:04:13 -0700, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jordan Marr wrote:
Personally, I don't think these kinds of puzzles are very useful for
comparing the real-world utility of paradigms.
What is not "real world" about solving variance problems? There are
plenty of business uses here. Oh wait, you must mean "real world", as
in "Topmind's world".
It is *not* representative of the apps and issues I have faced. Maybe
I live in a bubble somehow, but perhaps you do also. If I can be
mislead, so can you. You are not the center of the universe; we each
only have one lifetime to live.
Sorry I managed to delete the first few posts in the thread, so this
post is really directed at the first one as well as this one.
In my mind there are two issues that I have problems with. The first
one is where someone is trying to convert a 'logic' problem to an OO
one. I have an issue with this because to me, logic is not
condusive to facilitating object oriented conceptualising which as far
as I am concerned requires a great deal of fuzzyness.
To me, logic will always equate to procedural thinking (and should not
be equated to being a bad thing - it is, in its place a good thing).
But I will say that to me an object may contain logic parts and in
that regard one could also say that an object may contain procedural
parts, but that does not mean to me that objects are always logical
entities.
I have noticed over the years that some people require contextual
detail when doing OO and some people don't. I wonder if that culture
defines whether someone does OO following rigerous methods and
techniques (OO Principles) or if they just go with the flow so to
speak. i.e. does the 'context' of ones culture (whether they are
naturally high or low context people) affect the way people approach
OO.
The second issue more directly relates the problem being solved to the
solution provided. That is, to me this type of problem (logic
problems) are usually solved by some form of mathematical equation.
I think that in software development I have always referred to these
types of equations as 'algorithms' which are usually I think
implemented in a single high level function call (often to a bunch of
smaller detailed function calls). Given this, I cant say how one
could claim to have developed an object oriented solution when
implementing a single algorithm when the whole meta structure of
executing an algorigm is nothing more (to me) than the procedural
implementation of a logical set of steps (calculations). I think
one could say they have used object oriented techniques to solve the
problem (such as encapsulation, polymorphism and abstraction), but I
dont think one should suggest that the result is in its nature object
oriented, as I do not see an algorithm as being 'oriented towards
objects' (its more oriented towards being a service) since it can be
executed as a function/method call which to me at best perhaps is
merely part of an object.
----------------
AndyW,
Mercenary Software Developer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Whose Fish?
- From: Jordan Marr
- Re: Whose Fish?
- References:
- Whose Fish?
- From: Jordan Marr
- Re: Whose Fish?
- From: topmind
- Re: Whose Fish?
- From: Jordan Marr
- Re: Whose Fish?
- From: topmind
- Whose Fish?
- Prev by Date: Re: Whose Fish?
- Next by Date: Re: Whose Fish?
- Previous by thread: Re: Whose Fish?
- Next by thread: Re: Whose Fish?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
