Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 14 Apr 2008 21:14 "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:3OJMj.441909$us.6638(a)fe04.news.easynews.com... > <previous info deleted> > > some of this thread reminds me of one of my (many) lost battlers during > the development of the '02 COBOL standard. > > I never liked the implications of the syntax > > Invoke object-reference "method-name" using passed-parameters > > It always seemed to me that what was really happening was that a "message" > was being sent to the object-reference to be processed BY "method-name" > using passed-parameters. or in pseudo-syntax The concept of messages activating Methods in Objects is all but forgotten. It was part of the original concept but today it is so far "beneath the covers" that it has been lost sight of. (And properly, too, in my opinion...) As the reference is simply a pointer, the current syntax seems fine to me. The pointer represents the methods and properties of the Object and we need to state which of these we want activated or referenced. "Invoke" seems to cover it pretty well. (I like the arcane overtones of "invoke"... it's like Black Magic... :-)) > > Send Message to object-reference for "method-name" using passed-parameters What message? Where is your message?... this is confusing in environments where communication message processing is actually being carried out. > > I can't think of any other case in which two "operands" follow a COBOL > statement name before a preposition where the two have "different" uses, > e.g. > > Compute filed-1 field-2 = arithmetic expression > > In this case, "field-1" and field-2 are simply repeated receiving > operands. > > I didn't even think that object-reference is the "object of the verb" > INVOKE (English grammar, not "object" in OO sense) > > Are you really "invoking" an object reference? or are you sending > something to it? You are USING an object reference to do what references do... reference an object. Having "got to it" (via the reference) you now want to wake it up and activate some feature of it... hence "Invoke" is good... > > Oh well, it is certainly too late now, but I this thread did remind me of > the old issue. > Yeah, that boat has sailed... :-) Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Joe Zitzelberger on 17 Apr 2008 00:37 In article <h8-dnR5z4bcjaJ3VnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)mid-floridainternet>, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith(a)mfi.net> wrote: > 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. Hmmm, writing 'object oriented code' does not require an 'object oriented language'. Certainly having an OOL helps, but you can write OO Machine Language if you want to put the work into enforcing the rules. That is really all an OOL does for you, enforce the rules. The rules are very much language independent.
From: Joe Zitzelberger on 17 Apr 2008 00:45
In article <3OJMj.441909$us.6638(a)fe04.news.easynews.com>, "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: > > Send Message to object-reference for "method-name" using passed-parameters > If anyone had asked me (and of course, they didn't) I would have voted for: CALL method-name OF object-reference USING passed-parameters END-CALL That is really what is happening. An object is not really all that different from a module that exposes a few methods and a few data areas -- it just does so with some (usually ignored) rules. |