Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 03:56:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 09:56:30 +0100
From: Lipska the Kat <lipska@lipskathekat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120410 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Subject: Re: Encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism
References: <x_udnUHnRNWDu5jNnZ2dnUVZ8tudnZ2d@bt.com> <3vnfd9-343.ln1@satorlaser.homedns.org> <-8SdnVrXGqie25jNnZ2dnUVZ7qKdnZ2d@bt.com> <roy-29E9DF.09525917072012@news.panix.com> <FNKdnU7rKqT46JjNnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d@bt.com> <ju4651$ivo$1@dough.gmane.org> <5005A103.9050802@stoneleaf.us> <mailman.2241.1342549103.4697.python-list@python.org> <Lb-dnVNwAtQOLZjNnZ2dnUVZ7r6dnZ2d@bt.com> <GHnNr.7895$Hs3.4746@fx08.am4> <5006b48a$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <O4idnbBi5e1eV5vNnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d@bt.com> <50076437$0$1756$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> <3d919437-80a8-424f-ae90-fb829434dba2@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <3d919437-80a8-424f-ae90-fb829434dba2@po9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <SYidnTECQdpdVprNnZ2dnUVZ8m2dnZ2d@bt.com>
Lines: 92
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser
X-Trace: sv3-JNziV3tvma5DJ+F52vybuFkVd2mWrlCJIywnjj0WLg80ESPuQvbtOLuYeVVwP9zyan6HodC2BAA/QUz!1KMGsQTo3llfbrBcEZmta/p8/fu/Dt7H1GwLQFqMyMWvdfS92dBky4jXgG6ZE9TX9VLo/A23Bis=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 5788
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:25614

On 19/07/12 07:09, rusi wrote:
> On Jul 19, 6:34 am, Steven D'Aprano<steve
> +comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:40:00 +0100, Lipska the Kat wrote:
>>> Object Oriented programming is all about encapsulating human concepts in
>>> a way that makes sense to human beings. Make no mistake, it is NEVER the
>>> case that a software system is written for any other reason than to
>>> serve human beings. OO is more than just the mechanics of writing code,
>>> it's a state of mind.
>>
>> Um, yes?

> Its not so much a question of language as in programming as language
> as in layman-speak.
> One characteristic with our field is that we take ordinary words and
> then distort them so much the original meaning is completely lost.
>
> Take 'computer' for example.  For Turing a computer was a
> mathematician doing a computation with a pen and paper.  He then
> showed how to de-skill the mathematician so much that a machine could
> do what he was doing.  In trying that he also hit upon the limits of
> such 'de-skilling' -- human-computers routinely detect infinite loops,
> whereas machine-computers can never do so (in full generality).
>
> Ironically the important lesson is lost and today 'computer' is
> synonymous with machine.
>
> Here is Dijkstra on similar distortions with 'user' and
> 'intelligent':
> http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD06xx/EWD618.html
>
> 'Object' (and OO) are similar messes.

Well this is all very interesting.

The terminology is quite concise if you allow it to be
Take "An Object is an instance of a Class"

A Class describes a human concept (be it concrete like a 'Parrot' or 
more abstract like a 'Session') an Object is an actual representation of 
that concept that exists in the memory of a computer (what else should 
we call it). Objects don't exist in the mind of a human, concepts do. A 
class is a way of representing that concept so that other humans can 
understand it. That's it, really, there is no more, anything else is 
implementation.

> In layman-speak and object is well, a thing.

But we are not talking in 'layman-speak' we are discussing concepts that 
are familiar to us in the 'language of the domain' at least I though we 
were. Academic twiddling with the distorted meaning of words spun by 
vested interests is all very interesting I'm sure but doesn't really 
advance the discussion does it?

> - subject to space-laws like can only exist at one place at a time,
> there cannot be two objects at the same place and time etc.
> - subject to time-laws like coming into existence at some time and
> going out at some other
> - connotes inanimateness unlike other 'creatures' or 'beings'.

Well here I have to agree with you. Anyone who invents a 'Person' Class 
should be dismissed forthwith. Parrots are OK though.

> When this metaphor works (for example as in guis and simulation) then
> we have success-stories like smalltalk and simula.
>
> When it doesn't the success is poorer. eg a programmer writing math
> software in/on a OO system may for example 'clone' a matrix.  This may
> be good science-fiction; its bad math.
>
> And one of the most pervasive (and stupidist) metaphors is the parent-
> child relation of classes.
> Just for the record, in the normal world 'creatures/beings' reproduce
> and therefore inherit.

But we are not talking about the 'real world' are we, we are talking 
about representing complex interacting human concepts in a way that can 
be understood by humans and translated into a form that can be executed 
on a binary machine

 > Objects dont.

Well they do, it's a fact, you can call a method on a sub class that 
only exists in the super class. What else would you call it.

Well it's been fun but I have bills to pay so I suppose I'd better do 
some work. TTFN


-- 
Lipska the Kat: Troll hunter, Sandbox destroyer
and Farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun.