in reply to Re^7: The world is not object oriented (things or not?)
in thread The world is not object oriented

And you don't classify all of those..er..things as "things"?

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
Hooray!
  • Comment on Re: Re^7: The world is not object oriented (things or not?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: The world is not object oriented (but why things)
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Jan 05, 2004 at 15:18 UTC
    So how do you define "thing" if you consider these to be things? What makes a thing a thing? In terms of what can the essence of being a thing be described?

    Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

      That was my definition.

      Anything. Everything, All things are things.

      If you can use the word 'it', in a sentance to describe it, it is a thing.

      Perhaps the simplest definition is: If there is a word, picture or thought that to any degree, greater or lesser, decribes something, then it is a thing.

      Returning to the earlier description. If I (or anyone) can conceive of it; it is a thing.

      I'm guessing that about now, there are an aweful lot of onlookers wishing this thread would die :)

      Examine what is said, not who speaks.
      "Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
      "Think for yourself!" - Abigail
      Hooray!
[reply]
        This post exists only to disappoint the onlookers! (See parent post.)

        UPDATE And even something as small as this can have mistakes. Tyop fix (thanks Aristotle).

[reply]

In Section Meditations