On 10/26/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote: > On 10/25/2013 8:59 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: >> On 8/29/13, Jerry Stuckle <jstuc...@attglobal.net> wrote: >>> On 8/28/2013 7:52 PM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: >> >>>> Here is the important part: "Each object can be viewed as an >>>> independent >>>> "machine" with a distinct role or responsibility.". >>>> Nothing forbid to do that in C. I took the example of the SDL, >>>> previously. Does not it really match to that phrase? >>>> When I use SDL in a C++ program, I create 1 class with a constructor >>>> which call SDL_CreateSurface, while the destructor calls >>>> SDL_FreeSurface. I simply use the automated RAII stuff, which is the >>>> feature C lacks. Well... at least, in C, you can use RAII, by hand. Not >>>> only with Java or C#, or at least, not as easily (those languages are >>>> designed to use a garbage collector...can be useful sometimes.). >>>> >>> >>> It is not a "machine". It is an object. That's why it is called Object >>> Oriented Programming. >> >> Well. We of the "firm assertions" disposition often fall fatally to >> ... firm assertions. >> >> Jerry, perhaps you might soften your insistence that others use >> "JERRY'S DEFITION" as THE ONLY TRUE DEFINITION OF THIS COMPUTERY >> TERM!!! >> > > That is not MY definition. It is the definition put forth by recognized > experts in OO programming such as Booch, Rumbaugh and Stroustrup. If > you want to argue definitions, I suggest you argue with them. > >> How warm and encouraging would it be if you had instead said something >> like "I would prefer that the term object were not conflated with >> 'machine' for the following reasons ..." >> > > Maybe to you. I follow the experts' definitions. > >> Anyway, from an onlookers perspective you are being excessively >> pedantic and hung up on different terms which are simply intended to >> convey some meaning - and you have done so without saying _why_ >> 'machine' is a 'bad' term to use to describe the properties of an >> 'object' in OOP. >> >> Regards, >> Zenaan >> >> > > "Machine" is a bad term because it is not "Machine Oriented > Programming". It is "Object Oriented Programming" - because it emulates > real world objects - not machines.
And a machine is not a real-world object? Are you saying that I should refrain from using the term "machine" as an analogy to help explain OOP, because some "recognized experts" did not use that term? Besides, my point is not to attack "object" as being a useful term nor to attack "object" as being the preferred/accepted/sanctioned term. Can you see my point? My point was simply that "machine" is (in my opinion, and evidently in the opinions of others), useful to help describe or explain OOP. I did not ask you if machine was the best term. I humbly disagree with you, if what you are saying is that "machine" is a bad term to help describe or teach the "object" part of OOP to those trying to understand it. Terminology junkies are welcome to their terms. Some on this list have graciously ceded to _your_ preferred terms, in an endeavour to attempt to maintain actual communication. I think that is a wise thing. Good luck, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSSKXPxZG6nh-Lkdwu9o=6bnE7CZhPHb3j1uct0mKsm=0...@mail.gmail.com
