in reply to Re^9: The world is not object oriented (but why things)
in thread The world is not object oriented

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!

  • Comment on Re: Re^9: The world is not object oriented (but why things)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re^9: The world is not object oriented (but why things)
by tilly (Archbishop) on Jan 11, 2004 at 16:42 UTC
    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).