🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <goochb.334.0015B418@rwi.com>, 
goochb@rwi.com (William D. Gooch) writes:

|> Kazimir Kylheku (c2a192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca) wrote:
|>  
|> >The OO arena is a philosophical one. I don't particularly subscribe to the  
|> >view
|> >that there ought to be a naive correspondence between software entities and
|> >some ``real world'' entities,  ....
|> 
|> Nor do I.  The (apparently widespread) idea that such correspondence 
|> is in some way significant to the basis of object-oriented <whatever>
|> is, IMO, a gross misconception.  Object technology has a sound basis 
|> without it, and in programming, one is rarely modelling the "real world"
|> directly (except in UI, when building upon spatio-temporal "real world"
|> metaphors to bridge the gap between the abstractions a program is 
|> based on and the user, and even then, the models used are abstract).

OTOH, it is interesting that it is in GUI/window development that 
O-O methods have been *generally* regarded (even by skeptics) as most 
successful.  So, perhaps, there is some significance after all to such 
correspondence.  At least, if what you care about is actual productivity,
rather than an O-O religious experience.  Now, in some applications,
the GUI is 99% of the app, but in others, I can assure you that it is
less than 1%.  It may simply be the case that O-O methods are more 
effective, pragmatically speaking, for the former case than for the
latter.  Why insist on applying the same techniques to every problem?
[cliche' of the day: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, 
everything looks like a nail."]



-- 
  Hugh LaMaster, M/S 233-18,    Email:       Please send ASCII documents to:
  NASA Ames Research Center     Internet:    lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov
  Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000  Or:          lamaster@george.arc.nasa.gov 
  Phone:  415/604-1056          Disclaimer:  Unofficial, personal *opinion*.