Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 31 Mar 2008 19:57 "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote in message news:13utjs3674qjr8f(a)corp.supernews.com... > > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:657mp4F2dooroU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote in message >> news:13ur5tg3con5ja4(a)corp.supernews.com... >> > >> > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message >> > news:65553nF2cjsrhU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote in message >> >> news:13uq9i0e2sfdd1a(a)corp.supernews.com... >> >> > >> >> > < 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. > > I used to see objects as real world entities. Now I associate > real world entites with classes, because the methods in the > classes repesent behavior. Yes, that is fair comment. I used "object" (an instance of a Class) where I should probably have used "Class". Certainly the Class has methods which constitute the behaviour of the Class but until it is instantiated there is no behaviour anyway, so perhaps "object" is not really so wrong. > If one is to "simulate" anything, > it is the behavior that is to be simulated. Technically that is true. The data isn't simulated. But conceptually it is the synergy derived from the COMBINATION of behaviours AND data (as a single encapsulated whole) that makes Objects so powerful. > > To simulate a business, the behavior occurs in employees, > customers, orders, accounts, etc.; but to simulate the > financial systems of a business the behavior is in clerks, and > the employees, customers, orders, accounts, etc., become > just data structures devoid of behavior. Only if you see it like that. :-) At this point, I think we diverge. > This is not much > different than a card game, where the dealer and players > have behavior but the cards don't; even though the cards > are real world entities. The cards certainly DO exhibit behaviour. If they behave well you go home rich. :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 31 Mar 2008 20:01 In article <65dbahF2fprkhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >Programmers generally don't get to vote on what language will be used on the >sites where they work. Instead, the site mandates certain languages and >approaches, and then recruits people with those skills. And that is >reasonable, because programmers are generally not concerned with the welfare >of a given site (apart from the fact that if it goes broke they are faced >wth the inconvenience of getting another job); rather, they are concerned >primarily with making a living. > >You might think that would make them aware of changing technology and eager >to embrace new ideas. > >Paradoxically, it doesn't. Having invested years in gaining proficiency with >a given language, they then seek to protect their investment by resisting >change and trying to persuade others that it is unnecessary and inefficient. > >Only when the site management actually insist that the new stuff be >implemented, and when many other sites have adopted it and thereby changed >the market place for programming skills, will you find some of them getting >down to coming to grips with it. Thanks very much, Mr Dashwood... I'd call that quite mirth-inspiring, as sweeping generalisations about 'programmers' offer me about as much amusement as sweeping generalisations about 'mainframers'. DD
From: tlmfru on 31 Mar 2008 14:20 A challenge to this point of view - not disputing the real world fact to which it applies! What percentage of the people that have so "voted", Pete, are actually qualified? I.e., what percentage of them have complete familiarity with BOTH procedural and OO concepts? You have, as do other people that comment in this group; therefore your and their opinions must be taken seriously. But judging by comments about the putative behaviour of Java and other programmers should they be required to soil themselves with Cobol - they are acting strictly from their own prejudices, not in any reasoned manner. After all, most of them have as their first language Java or C++. All of us are canalized to a certain extent by what we learn first; so this is not suprising. But it isn't and should not be taken to be a rational thing. (Remember the "arguments" for using goto-less programs - and I don't want to start a debate on that: "GOTO's suck". "Don't use GOTO's - ever". QED. Such a standard of debate would be sneered off the planet if rationality were to rule). Put another way: how far would you trust the conclusions of a hardware consultant who states that the only thing he's familiar with is Solaris? So why should one accept the opinion of somebody whose ONLY experience is in Java? PL Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:65572qF2devk5U1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > Very interesting post, Richard. I didn't know the terms came from > Simulation. I liked your examples. > > I think the whole debate over OO is pointless. The world has voted with its > feet. Trying to pretend there is nothing different or advantageous in using > OO, over standard COBOL, is like trying to pretend that a car is really just > a horse... > > That is not to say there are not some things for which a horse is better > suited than a car, but saying that, in no way diminishes cars...or horses > :-) > > Pete. > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." > >
From: Alistair on 1 Apr 2008 14:23 On 29 Mar, 21:47, tim <T...(a)internet.com> wrote: > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0700, Alistair wrote: > > On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...(a)internet.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:15:20 +0000, docdwarf wrote: > > >> > 'Technically' there is even less difference between what you cite and > >> > between A-negative and B-positive human blood... now I'd appreciate it if > >> > you'd keep away from dealing with transfusions. > > >> > DD > > >> Ditto. No more than one bit might separate a program that works correctly > >> and one that fails catastrophically. This is a relevant analogy, because > >> DNA is code. > > > Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no > > discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or > > reason. > > This remains true.. But as I understand it a fair amount of the DNA that > does not produce proteins and thus was classified as junk DNA does in fact > produce RNA, Some would be for RNA encoding but the majority of 'junk' has no known function with much appearing to be 'blank' encoding. > which has an important role in regulating cell functions. For > example, a lot of the mutations that separate humans from their relatives > seem to be for RNA that controls brain functions. > > Tim- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Apr 2008 17:50
<docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:fsru19$pag$1(a)reader2.panix.com... > In article <65dbahF2fprkhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > > [snip] > >>Programmers generally don't get to vote on what language will be used on >>the >>sites where they work. Instead, the site mandates certain languages and >>approaches, and then recruits people with those skills. And that is >>reasonable, because programmers are generally not concerned with the >>welfare >>of a given site (apart from the fact that if it goes broke they are faced >>wth the inconvenience of getting another job); rather, they are concerned >>primarily with making a living. >> >>You might think that would make them aware of changing technology and >>eager >>to embrace new ideas. >> >>Paradoxically, it doesn't. Having invested years in gaining proficiency >>with >>a given language, they then seek to protect their investment by resisting >>change and trying to persuade others that it is unnecessary and >>inefficient. >> >>Only when the site management actually insist that the new stuff be >>implemented, and when many other sites have adopted it and thereby changed >>the market place for programming skills, will you find some of them >>getting >>down to coming to grips with it. > > Thanks very much, Mr Dashwood... I'd call that quite mirth-inspiring, as > sweeping generalisations about 'programmers' offer me about as much > amusement as sweeping generalisations about 'mainframers'. > > DD > Glad it made you smile, Doc. As Sir Arthur Wing Pinero reminded us: "There is no harm in laughter". I was aware of the general nature of my comments; as such, I wouldn't want them taken too seriously. Nevertheless, SOME of the generalization would be true for SOME programmers. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |