Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: John-Paul Stewart Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript Subject: Re: Objects what are they. Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:16:39 -0400 Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: <8e03edae-dc71-4a28-9b80-579934821794@googlegroups.com> <1e0e684f-a0c8-40d9-b43d-9129a7d4b99d@googlegroups.com> <3e84754a-df88-4f4a-a328-d6d685b56a22@googlegroups.com> <18b0d7b8-c41b-43bf-b38e-f4aa99dc3b9b@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net IgpXc4d0NOtWLkhe7admYASX6Glkur3dBkX7Ys2mpx3gJY78EY Cancel-Lock: sha1:vouIZNjfGMBJVgtLeMZwNGnuTqg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 In-Reply-To: <18b0d7b8-c41b-43bf-b38e-f4aa99dc3b9b@googlegroups.com> Content-Language: en-CA Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:36488 On 2019-04-29 11:41 a.m., jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote: > Den måndag 29 april 2019 kl. 17:15:34 UTC+2 skrev John-Paul Stewart: >> On 2019-04-29 8:11 a.m., R.Wieser wrote: >>> Jonas, >>> >>>> I consider it a synth content object. Not four objects that >>>> should be stringed together. >>> >>> Yes, that is what you should /consider/ it as. But you /build/ it by >>> adding parts-and-bits to it. >> >> Very true. >> >> As an analogy, consider a car. Once it is built, you typically can and >> do treat it as a single object. But when building that same car you >> have to consider it as a set of four wheel objects (which in turn are >> each built out of tires, rims, ...), plus an engine object (which is a >> set of pistons, a crankshaft, ...), and so on. The use of component >> objects simplifies not only building it but also maintaining and >> upgrading the bigger object, whether you're talking about a car or software. >> >> In both real life and software, almost every complex object is built out >> of simpler component objects. And it typically nests many levels deep. >> There are different levels of abstraction/detail in reality and in >> software for very good reasons. Use them to your advantage. > > But is not my simple "pseudo code object" also built by parts component objects? I was elaborating on a point made by R.Wieser in response to your statement (quoted at the top of my previous post) that you "consider it a synth content object. Not four objects that should be stringed together." Now you're saying the exact opposite: that your object is composed of other objects. But my point is that it depends on how you look at it. Sometimes all you want is the high-level abstraction of "one object". At other times you need the detailed view that it is a bunch of smaller objects.