Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32446 > unrolled thread

Beginner

Started byarya.neelan@gmail.com
First post2015-08-31 05:39 -0700
Last post2015-09-08 05:25 -0700
Articles 5 on this page of 25 — 11 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Beginner arya.neelan@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 05:39 -0700
    Re: Beginner e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 06:27 -0700
      Re: Beginner Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 10:08 -0700
        Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:04 -0400
    Re: Beginner Ramon F Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> - 2015-09-02 16:33 -0500
      Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:13 -0400
      Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:15 -0400
    Re: Beginner Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-03 10:39 +0000
      Re: Beginner Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-09-04 01:16 +1000
        Re: Beginner Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-03 18:50 +0000
          Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:11 -0400
            Re: Beginner Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-04 08:38 +0000
              Re: Beginner e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 05:21 -0700
                Re: Beginner Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-09-04 09:43 -0700
                  Re: Beginner e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 10:35 -0700
      Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:06 -0400
        Re: Beginner Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-04 08:41 +0000
    Re: Beginner "F. Berisha" <fmberisha@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 02:30 +0200
      Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-06 21:44 -0400
        Re: Beginner Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-06 21:53 -0400
        Re: Beginner Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-07 08:43 +0000
          Re: Beginner Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:02 +0100
            Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-07 11:17 -0400
          Re: Beginner Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-07 11:11 -0400
        Re: Beginner e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 05:25 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#32551

FromMartin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid>
Date2015-09-07 08:43 +0000
Message-ID<msjink$ur$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#32548
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 21:44:15 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:

> I may be somewhat picky.
> 
> But I don't like it.
> 
> http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/CIS200/ch2V9.html
>
Same here, but for slightly different reasons: I don't much like it 
talking about classes, methods, and methods sending messages to each 
other without some explanation of these terms and how they relate to each 
other. 

I must also say that I have never liked the 'sending messages' metaphor 
as used in OOP: Its fine when talking about processes sending messages 
over a connection but has always seemed rather strained when used to 
describe what is in reality a function call. If a message is really being 
sent, surely I should be able to display it with, say, Wireshark, or a 
fundamental OOP component without modifying my code in any way.
   
> "The Java designers use the term application to describe a program that
> is started by a human user."
> 
> I consider Java programs started by a job scheduler to be applications
> as well.
>
Agreed. 
 

-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32552

FromEternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com>
Date2015-09-07 13:02 +0100
Message-ID<msju8k$gcb$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#32551
On 07/09/2015 09:43, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 21:44:15 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>
>> I may be somewhat picky.
>>
>> But I don't like it.
>>
>> http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/CIS200/ch2V9.html
>>
> Same here, but for slightly different reasons: I don't much like it
> talking about classes, methods, and methods sending messages to each
> other without some explanation of these terms and how they relate to each
> other.
>
> I must also say that I have never liked the 'sending messages' metaphor

'sending messages' is an abstraction at the same level as 'Object'

An Object sends a message to another Object.
That's all it means, how it actually occurs is irrelevant at this level 
of abstraction.

I can't remember having seen any reference in any Java text I have read 
to methods sending messages to one another, a message is a higher level 
abstraction than a method. Talking about methods sending messages to one 
another is a sign of confused thinking.

Saying a method 'calls' another method is fine but that is Java speak 
and has no place in the 'language of OO'

OO terminology when used at the system design level should only use 
abstract notions.

'method, procedure, function' etc have no place in the 'language of OO'


-- 
Laughing Spam Fritter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32554

FromArne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Date2015-09-07 11:17 -0400
Message-ID<msk9pi$n1v$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#32552
On 9/7/2015 8:02 AM, Eternal Hope wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 09:43, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 21:44:15 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> I may be somewhat picky.
>>>
>>> But I don't like it.
>>>
>>> http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/CIS200/ch2V9.html
>>>
>> Same here, but for slightly different reasons: I don't much like it
>> talking about classes, methods, and methods sending messages to each
>> other without some explanation of these terms and how they relate to each
>> other.
>>
>> I must also say that I have never liked the 'sending messages' metaphor
>
> 'sending messages' is an abstraction at the same level as 'Object'
>
> An Object sends a message to another Object.
> That's all it means, how it actually occurs is irrelevant at this level
> of abstraction.
>
> I can't remember having seen any reference in any Java text I have read
> to methods sending messages to one another, a message is a higher level
> abstraction than a method. Talking about methods sending messages to one
> another is a sign of confused thinking.
>
> Saying a method 'calls' another method is fine but that is Java speak
> and has no place in the 'language of OO'
>
> OO terminology when used at the system design level should only use
> abstract notions.
>
> 'method, procedure, function' etc have no place in the 'language of OO'

Procedure and function are not OO terms.

But method is an OO term.

Maybe a bit more low level than message, but it is a part of OOD
not just implementation language.

And I think an indication of that is the fact that UML class
diagrams have methods.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32553

FromArne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk>
Date2015-09-07 11:11 -0400
Message-ID<msk9fh$m7b$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#32551
On 9/7/2015 4:43 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 21:44:15 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> I may be somewhat picky.
>>
>> But I don't like it.
>>
>> http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/CIS200/ch2V9.html
>>
> Same here, but for slightly different reasons: I don't much like it
> talking about classes, methods, and methods sending messages to each
> other without some explanation of these terms and how they relate to each
> other.

That may be covered before they start the Java course.

> I must also say that I have never liked the 'sending messages' metaphor
> as used in OOP: Its fine when talking about processes sending messages
> over a connection but has always seemed rather strained when used to
> describe what is in reality a function call. If a message is really being
> sent, surely I should be able to display it with, say, Wireshark, or a
> fundamental OOP component without modifying my code in any way.

It is not really a metaphor more like a core OO concept.

But yes - it sounds weird for the C++/Java/C# crowd.

I think the Smalltalk/Object-C crowd find it much more natural.

It is a bit like relation/tuple/attribute vs table/row/field.
The first is the real relational concept, but in practice the
latter is much more used.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32558

Frome.d.programmer@gmail.com
Date2015-09-08 05:25 -0700
Message-ID<cde47a41-295b-4007-aa86-282411bc7c28@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#32548
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 9:44:31 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> I may be somewhat picky.
> 
> But I don't like it.

Agreed, from what you describe, that book sounds horrible.

Calling Java 'wordy' is good for a laugh, for someone who learned COBOL in college.

System.out is not a 'command window'.  IDEs show text sent to System.out in a command window display.  It can be redirected elsewhere.  It's just the 'standard output'.  A production program normally sends that output to a text file.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web