Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
in [Cobol]
|
From: tlmfru on 12 Apr 2008 20:20 Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:66afacF2iuc6lU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message > news:yDNLj.27645$KJ1.1559(a)newsfe19.lga... > > If I may stick my oar in here - Pete, make sure that when you use a term > > with meaning in both OO and non-OO that your reader knows exactly what you > > mean. > > Peter, I'm getting so tired of this I can't be bothered any more. Get used to it. :-) > > I'm happy to discuss Object based development and relate how I use it. I'm > not happy to enter an academic argument about the intimate details of OOA, > OOD, and OOP, because it really isn't relevant (in those terms) to what I do > every day, and I haven't worked on any sites where it is. > > > > > A discussion between us last year foundered when you used a word - > > function - that meant in non-OO terms that the program /system did not > > perform that particular necessary process, while in OO it means something > > completely different. > > Get over it. :-) > Most people can make their point without being a jerk about it. I posed a perfectly acceptable question, based upon what you had said, and which you could have cleared up in twenty words or less. Instead you became like the "Englishman abroad" of storied fame who grouses that "These damned wogs ought to speak English". > > > > Natural language is slippery. > > Yes, it is. Oddly enough I write thousands of words every year, have them > published in various magazines, newspapers, and on the web, and this is the > ONLY place where people have trouble understanding me... > > I have to ask myself whether my time here is being well spent. > > Pete. > -- Oddly enough I write thousands of words every year, on all sorts of subjects, in all kinds of media, and it's only here where I encounter people who refuse to answer my questions because I don't speak the language. PL
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2008 04:33 "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote in message news:h8-dnR5z4bcjaJ3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)mid-floridainternet... > > "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:66b4muF2jli9bU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote in message >> news:Z4CdncSCCf-RM2LanZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d(a)mid-floridainternet... > [snip] >> > >> > The fact is that were one to encapsulate behaviors and >> > properties into (a COBOL 68 program as) an object, it >> > would not be more than what it appears to be. >> >> I make a simple statement, intended to express a concept. (There is a >> synergy obtained when you create objects. Part of that synergy is the >> fact >> that you can use objects in many ways OUTSIDE of expressing them as > computer >> code.) > > Please note the use of the plural "objects". > >> "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." > > Please note the use of the singular "Object" preceded by > "an" suggesting an intent to use the singular. > > Pete, make up your mind! <g> My response was predicated > on your use of the singular, meaning that the "synergistic > whole" is encapsulated within one object. Why would that make a difference? A single object has synergy and so do multiple objects derived from the same class. It isn't important. What IS important is that by building Objects with encapsulated properties and behaviours (and using them as such), a synergy is obtained that isn't available if you don't do that. > > [snip] >> "Oh no, Pete. If I do that with COBOL 68 I don't have any synergy..." >> >> Well, Gee, Rick... might be time you moved off COBOL 68. > > My references to COBOL 68 demonstrate that the > *academic* definition of "object" is so broad that even a > language that can not be use in object-oriented progamming > is included. This renders the definition of "object" absurd > and impractical. > No, it doesn't, but I understand your point. Normally, people can infer from the context which use of "object" is being employed (a broad or a narrow one). Most people are not totally literal in interpreting what they read; they look for meaning... It staggers me that a plural or a singular in the context above can mean so much to you, but I accept that it does. OK, I read your response and thought about it. I can see that it may be impossible for us to communicate on objects because we have different intentions and different world views. I believe you are sincere and not doing it out of mischief so I'll stay with it for now. You have stated elsewhere that you don't like the use of the word "object", but that is what is used, and it can have different meanings depending on the context. I gave some thought to why the use of "object" should be so troublesome (at least for you and me...) I use "object" in a broader sense than you do (except when I don't...:-)) and, as you are not interested in the overall concept I am trying to express (and, I might add it is extremely difficult for me to express something that is a purely conceptual abstraction, despite normally having little difficulty expressing my thoughts) you seized on what I wrote and attacked it because it doesn't match your definition. It's like you make no attempt to see what I am trying to say, and are more interested in a hair splitting argument about it on grounds I have no intention of discussing, let alone defending. During this discussion I have sometimes used "object" in a much broader sense than merely "an instance of a Class". Peter Coad (Coad/Yourdon) gives some good advice on what he calls "Object think"... and I believe this is the basic fundamental way of looking at objects which I absorbed many years ago and still operate upon. For me now, it is "taken as read" and I am usually communicating with others who understand this definition also, so no problem arises. On the fairly rare occasions when I am discussing an object as being computer code representing an instance of a class, I believe that is pretty obvious from the context, but it may not be. Coad views each object as knowing things and knowing how to do things; whether you agree with it or not, it will at least help to clarify for you how I see it... When modelling with objects (or even generally thinking about them) I tend to personalize them, so... I am a Customer. I know my: name address phone number date of birth I know how to: display my details on various devices and media update my details create a new instance of myself cancel my account create a new account for myself display details of any account I hold get a balance of any account I hold This is a long way from COBOL 68 :-) You can see that this kind of view is quite distant from the formalism of OOA, OOD, OOP although it can certainly be applied there also. I think that an article I read back in the early days (around 10 years ago...) makes an accurate statement of some of the problems being encountered here... The following is extracted from one small part of it: "The Problem of Adults Learning New Concepts Business engineering teams are increasingly turning to object-oriented techniques to model business processes. In the future, the business model and the software model will become fused. Both business and computing professionals must learn to "object think" in order to gain the knowledge and skills needed for business reengineering. However, since object orientation involves a paradigm shift, the principles of adult learning must be carefully applied. One mainframe programmer (quoted from an article in Computerworld March 14, 1994) who made the transition to objects, described the essence of the new way of thinking: "In any kind of procedural language, you are breaking down work flow and coding it. In object-oriented design, you're breaking down events and assigning responsibilities to *OBJECTS* and not really dealing with work flow anymore." Once the new way of thinking is instilled, the syntax, grammar and complexities of object-oriented tools and techniques become manageable to the learner. " (My emphasis...) I don't know if any of this helps at all, but this is my best shot at explaining what I mean (usually) when I use the term "object". Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 13 Apr 2008 05:07 "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message news:HmcMj.105421$Ft5.51692(a)newsfe15.lga... > > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message > news:66afacF2iuc6lU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> >> "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message >> news:yDNLj.27645$KJ1.1559(a)newsfe19.lga... >> > If I may stick my oar in here - Pete, make sure that when you use a >> > term >> > with meaning in both OO and non-OO that your reader knows exactly what > you >> > mean. >> >> Peter, I'm getting so tired of this I can't be bothered any more. > > Get used to it. :-) Fortunately, I don't have to get used to it. > >> >> I'm happy to discuss Object based development and relate how I use it. >> I'm >> not happy to enter an academic argument about the intimate details of >> OOA, >> OOD, and OOP, because it really isn't relevant (in those terms) to what I > do >> every day, and I haven't worked on any sites where it is. >> >> > >> > A discussion between us last year foundered when you used a word - >> > function - that meant in non-OO terms that the program /system did not >> > perform that particular necessary process, while in OO it means > something >> > completely different. >> >> Get over it. :-) >> > > Most people can make their point without being a jerk about it. You "stick your oar in" and I'M a jerk...? > I posed a > perfectly acceptable question, Perhaps you can show me where there is a question in what you actually wrote? "If I may stick my oar in here - Pete, make sure that when you use a term with meaning in both OO and non-OO that your reader knows exactly what you mean." Nope, can't see a question anywhere there... perfectly reasonable or otherwise. As a piece of advice, it is impossible to implement because it is actually impossible (without further questioning) to ascertain whether anyone EVER knows EXACTLY what you mean. >based upon what you had said, and which you > could have cleared up in twenty words or less. Possibly, if I had the faintest idea what you're talking about. >Instead you became like the > "Englishman abroad" of storied fame who grouses that "These damned wogs > ought to speak English". I don't even want you to explain that; I'd rather not know... > >> > >> > Natural language is slippery. >> >> Yes, it is. Oddly enough I write thousands of words every year, have them >> published in various magazines, newspapers, and on the web, and this is > the >> ONLY place where people have trouble understanding me... >> >> I have to ask myself whether my time here is being well spent. >> >> Pete. >> -- > > > Oddly enough I write thousands of words every year, on all sorts of > subjects, in all kinds of media, and it's only here where I encounter > people > who refuse to answer my questions because I don't speak the language. I have never refused to answer anyone's question on any subject I was qualified to reply on, provided I understood what the question was. As I can detect no question here, you can hardly blame me for not answering. I have never used incorrect language, creed, colour, race, age, sex, or any other prejudicial factor as a basis for not answering a straight and fair question. Neither have I ever used a term like "these damned wogs" or even THOUGHT it. I hope this is clear. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything".
From: Richard Brady on 13 Apr 2008 15:04 Rick Smith wrote: [snip] > But, in fact, the urge of everyone is to just implement. You > know, talent comes in a bell curve. The middle of the bell > curve is 67%. When you have 2 million people implementing > without dealing with the best ideas from the 2 million, you're > going to get maybe 1.4 million bad systems. > ----- > > Please remember that those folks above and below the middle are evenly split -- say 17% above and 17% below -- meaning you get another 333,000 awful systems and 333,000 good systems. Regards, Richard Brady
From: Rick Smith on 13 Apr 2008 22:39
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:66durcFk6oreU1(a)mid.individual.net... [snip] > OK, I read your response and thought about it. > > I can see that it may be impossible for us to communicate on objects because > we have different intentions and different world views. > > I believe you are sincere and not doing it out of mischief so I'll stay with > it for now. > > You have stated elsewhere that you don't like the use of the word "object", > but that is what is used, and it can have different meanings depending on > the context. > > I gave some thought to why the use of "object" should be so troublesome (at > least for you and me...) > > I use "object" in a broader sense than you do (except when I don't...:-)) > and, as you are not interested in the overall concept I am trying to express > (and, I might add it is extremely difficult for me to express something that > is a purely conceptual abstraction, despite normally having little > difficulty expressing my thoughts) you seized on what I wrote and attacked > it > because it doesn't match your definition. It's like you make no attempt to > see what I am trying to say, and are more interested in a hair splitting > argument about it on grounds I have no intention of discussing, let alone > defending. > > During this discussion I have sometimes used "object" in a much broader > sense than merely "an instance of a Class". > > Peter Coad (Coad/Yourdon) gives some good advice on what he calls "Object > think"... and I believe this is the basic fundamental way of looking at > objects which I absorbed many years ago and still operate upon. For me now, > it is "taken as read" and I am usually communicating with others who > understand this definition also, so no problem arises. On the fairly rare > occasions when I am discussing an object as being computer code representing > an instance of a class, I believe that is pretty obvious from the context, > but it may not be. > > Coad views each object as knowing things and knowing how to do things; > whether you agree with it or not, it will at least help to clarify for you > how I see it... > > When modelling with objects (or even generally thinking about them) I tend > to personalize them, so... > > I am a Customer. > I know my: > name > address > phone number > date of birth > I know how to: > display my details on various devices and media > update my details > create a new instance of myself > cancel my account > create a new account for myself > display details of any account I hold > get a balance of any account I hold > > This is a long way from COBOL 68 :-) > > You can see that this kind of view is quite distant from the formalism of > OOA, OOD, OOP although it can certainly be applied there also. > > I think that an article I read back in the early days (around 10 years > ago...) makes an accurate statement of some of the problems being > encountered here... > > The following is extracted from one small part of it: > > "The Problem of Adults Learning New Concepts > > Business engineering teams are increasingly turning to object-oriented > techniques to model business processes. In the future, the business model > and the software model will become fused. Both business and computing > professionals must learn to "object think" in order to gain the knowledge > and skills needed for business reengineering. However, since object > orientation involves a paradigm shift, the principles of adult learning must > be carefully applied. One mainframe programmer (quoted from an article in > Computerworld March 14, 1994) who made the transition to objects, described > the essence of the new way of thinking: "In any kind of procedural language, > you are breaking down work flow and coding it. In object-oriented design, > you're breaking down events and assigning responsibilities to *OBJECTS* and > not really dealing with work flow anymore." Once the new way of thinking is > instilled, the syntax, grammar and complexities of object-oriented tools and > techniques become manageable to the learner. " > > (My emphasis...) > > I don't know if any of this helps at all, but this is my best shot at > explaining what I mean (usually) when I use the term "object". Some of the difficulties I have with the term "object-oriented" are addressed in a blog by Chuck Hoffman titled, "conventional OO syntax considered <strike>harmful</strike> needlessly misleading", January 9, 2008. < http://nothinghappens.net/?p=214 > < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-based_programming > describes an "object" similar to the way I have understood it to be, with additions I hadn't thought about at all.. ----- An object is similar to a structure, with the addition of method pointers, member access control, and an implicit data member which locates instances of the class (i.e. actual objects of that class) in the class hierarchy (essential for runtime inheritance features). ----- I find no immediate connection between this or other formal definitions of "object" and the identification of objects during the earlier phases of analysis and design; however, these phases together with programming may be (and in my case are) connected by "class". At least eight years ago, I made a mental shift from "object-oriented" to what is now called "class-oriented" and, once I did that, the benefits and problems of using object-oriented techniques became clearer. I have no reason to doubt that "object" was clear in Dr. Kay's mind when he coined the term "object-oriented"; but that same clarity has eluded me. Even today, "object" in "object-oriented" seems contrived, rather that natural; especially in contrast to "procedure" in "procedural". "Encapsulation-oriented" might be a better term than "object-oriented". "Alan Kay is often quoted as having said that, in retrospect, he would have called it 'message oriented' rather than 'object oriented'." -- < http://nothinghappens.net/?p=214 > However, I find "class-oriented" to be just fine. My experience, for more than twenty years, was with a company that produces both hardware and software. Embedded systems and stand-alone software are two places where object-oriented (or class-oriented) is an excellent fit. This is, therefore, the point of view from which I studied object-orientation. From this perspective, the goal was, as I saw it, to create separate, reusable, application-centric class structures, similar in form to Microsoft's Foundation Classes and, from those class structures embedded programs and stand-alone applications. Admittedly, this is probably not the best frame of mind for learning about shape objects, ball objects bouncing, or velociraptor objects chasing, pouncing on, and eating prey objects. While I don't know how my transition occurred, I imagine the mention of object and seeing a class may have equated the two and led me to think about class only. Once I made the transition, object became rather meaningless and I was free to learn what I needed. |