Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister
 
PerlMonks  

Re: The world is not object oriented

by kal (Hermit)
on Jan 02, 2004 at 12:25 UTC ( #318294=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to The world is not object oriented

Yeah, I pretty much agree with most of your points. Although, I don't think you should read the four points quite as standalone as you appear to have done: it seems more a train of thought to the last one, but in a rough way, not a proof way.

Objects are fairly good at modelling discrete systems. They're not very good at continuous, but then computers in general aren't, and tend to end up treating the problem in a somewhat quantum fashion. So, if you're attempting to replicate a real-world system, you always have some kind of information loss if the system contains any continuous process. And this is all assuming you can capture enough information about the thing to know how it works.

I'm kind of surprised at your thought towards the end though - if anything, I would think it would be more appealing to the analysts, although perhaps your descriptions are slightly different to what I'm thinking. In my experience, OO tends to appeal to people who want to map the software onto the problem directly, essentially making a little world inside the computer. The abstraction side of things is very rarely used in real-world OO, again, IME.


Comment on Re: The world is not object oriented
Re: Re: The world is not object oriented
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jan 03, 2004 at 02:33 UTC
    You may not have experienced the tendancy for people using OO to overabstract things. But I certainly have run into plenty of that.

    As for my final thought, pick up a design patterns book, and read it. Think about it in light of the two basic patterns of thought that I described for mathematics. If you can't see how it more closely resembles the algebraic mode of thought, then I probably didn't describe it clearly enough. For the real explanation I'd have to inflict a few months of advanced math on you. After you'd experienced figuring out, say, how homology groups work (for a demonstration of algebra) and various epsilon-delta proofs (for a taste of analysis), then you'd know directly the distinction that I am trying to describe.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://318294]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others having an uproarious good time at the Monastery: (19)
As of 2014-07-23 19:10 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (151 votes), past polls