Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
in [Cobol]
|
From: Richard on 1 Apr 2008 19:24 On Apr 2, 10:50 am, "Pete Dashwood" > > Nevertheless, SOME of the generalization would be true for SOME programmers. > With these conditions applied then in what way would they still be 'generalizations' ?
From: Pete Dashwood on 1 Apr 2008 20:40 "Richard" <riplin(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote in message news:67e3cd1d-9034-4d40-8fe7-18bcc1b9cfa3(a)b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Apr 2, 10:50 am, "Pete Dashwood" > > Nevertheless, SOME of the generalization would be true for SOME > programmers. > With these conditions applied then in what way would they still be 'generalizations' ? [Pete] They wouldn't be, that's why I didn't qualify them, originally :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Joe Zitzelberger on 11 Apr 2008 00:15 In article <13uq9i0e2sfdd1a(a)corp.supernews.com>, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> 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". An "object", in pure OO thought, is a bundle of zero or more structures AND zero or more procedures together. 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.
From: Pete Dashwood on 11 Apr 2008 00:39 "Joe Zitzelberger" <zberger(a)knology.net> wrote in message news:zberger-A7F0BE.00153011042008(a)ispnews.usenetserver.com... > In article <13uq9i0e2sfdd1a(a)corp.supernews.com>, > "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> 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."
From: Richard Brady on 11 Apr 2008 09:51
Pete Dashwood wrote: [snip] > 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. > [snip] > 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. OK Pete, At the risk of getting you in serious trouble again, here I have these files to read containing data. How does this data constitute an object and after I've manipulated the heck out of it generating the view I wish, how do I save the object(s) to media (disk, print or screen)? Thanks for this and other insights. Regards, Richard Brady |