Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!rt.uk.eu.org!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPTjJmoNhp9Bgx6sUoZAFWm-aDVL4n0L0TW00-6_EbJTrMw6hw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <15ba0011-bbf1-42f7-b3ea-1c1d4b70e56b@googlegroups.com> <51c66962$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <20130623133546.GA2308@capricorn> <mailman.3729.1372004188.3114.python-list@python.org> <51c723b4$0$29999$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <51C74D6E.6030200@rece.vub.ac.be> <CALwzidnf0h3GUdeQFjwwhMYXXJVyOCFuE-kc564k-j_1icoC_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmoeMX5FL=dQzW+W0D1W2BqSP=n+Z412Y_q5zS0gS7+0xg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMjeLr-DGbYboHw7gfANO=pM92==0nvxybyc8CxP-nTyWw-+hg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPTjJmoNhp9Bgx6sUoZAFWm-aDVL4n0L0TW00-6_EbJTrMw6hw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:00:56 -0700
Subject: Re: What is the semantics meaning of 'object'?
From: Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
To: Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3865.1372202622.3114.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 44
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:49211

>> Here's how it *should* be made:  the most superest, most badassed
>> object should take care of its children.  New instances should
>> automatically call up the super chain (and not leave it up to the
>> subclasses), so that the parent classes can take care of the chil'en.
>>  When something goes wrong the parent class has to look in and see
>> what's wrong.
>
> So what you're saying is that the first class defined does everything,
> and subclasses _restrict_ what can be done? I disagree strongly:

That's right.  Just as the *machine* restricts what can be done.  It's
an upturning of the purity model and going back to practicality.

> 1) That breaks the Liskov Substitution Principle. A subclass of list
> ought to fulfill the contracts of a basic list.

We don't need LSP.  I write about this on the WIkiWikiWeb where there
were many arguments documented and many hairs frazzled.  LSP was
derived from AlanKay's abstract idea of "Everything is an object".
But no -- there is a *physics* for information, and it ends at the
machine types.

> 2) It implies that someone can invent an all-encompassing superclass
> before any subclassing is done.

No, we start with basic types and work upwards.  The
"all-encompassing" superclass it an all-encompassing data object:  in
mathematics, it's called a SET -- and mathematics has already done the
work to prove that it's the most generic and all-encompassing, a field
of SET THEORY.

> This kinda violates the laws of
> information. Programmers, being creative entities, will be adding to
> the pool of knowledge. Trying to shoehorn everything into one object
> won't work.

No, we don't need programmers adding to the "pool of knowledge" -- the
internet does that.  We need programmers making data objects that can
present data in new and more interesting ways -- starting from basic
principles.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington