Re: Re: Re: The world is not object oriented

[Anonymous Monk]

If this was a philosophy forum rather than a programming one, I might pursue this thread further.

No, this isn't a philosophy forum: But then, philosophical reasoning belongs in every forum :). At any rate, I thought the passage quoted was interesting and relevant, and that a great number of the objects we programmers use, or discover, or invent, are propped up entirely by groups of relations (conventions, if you will): The very concepts Object and Class in OO for example. And in a deeply OO language, Classes are Objects too. And when programmers get caught up in the "programming objects" == "real world objects" (and variations along those lines), it can be pertinent to ask them what "real world object" the Class object models.

[BrowserUk]

...it can be pertinent to ask them what "real world object" the Class object models.

Why, the real-world (conceptual meta) object of "Everything" of course :)

Everything must include everything, just as Class must include class.

[Aristotle]

And just how do you define "thing"? This question is one of those which are as old as mankind itself.

[BrowserUk]

I thought about offering the dictionary definition, but that would be cheating, so:

If you can point at it, touch it, hear it, smell it, taste it, speak of it, think about it, be scared of it, or worship it, it is one.

There may be more of them that don't fit into any of these categories. But if there are, we cannot yet concieve of them. But when we can, they will be also :)