in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Object Terminology
in thread Object Terminology

But i digress, my goal was not to discuss OOP/OOA/OOD in this level of detail. But to instead try and simplify some relatively complex ideas into short paragraphs for easy consumption, in the hopes that a common understanding/terminology would promote discussion

I applaud your effort, but I think you slightly missed the mark of "easy consumption" :-). I tend to agree with chromatic that it looks like you're relating each concept to interitance. I wonder if it would be possible to describe each concept with out comparing or referencing the others. Or perhaps create a taxonomy (we are talking about OOP right? :-) of object composition, code reuse, etc. so that when you're talking about idea X, people know that it trys to accomplish the same goals as ideas Y and Z. (Perhaps taxonomy is a bad word because it will end up looking more like Venn diagrams)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Object Terminology
by stvn (Monsignor) on Jan 12, 2004 at 14:24 UTC
    duff,

    I have been giving some thought as to categorizing each section, kind of like how "Design Patterns" are always formated with a consistent set of sections and sub sections. Is this what you mean when you talk about taxonomy?

    As for your note about "easy consumption", you are absolutely correct, I showed this to one of the interns we have at work, and he had to ask me alot of questions about various bits of terminology (encapsulation, polymorphism, etc). He is only a first year CS student and has had minimal OO experience, so he had seen the terms before, but was unclear on their meaning. So it seems that i may need to take a step back and define some of the other more fundemental elements of OO first, then move into the later topics.

    Thank you much for the comments. I will keep them all in mind. I think today is the day for me to write version 2.0, assuming those pesky paying clients don't bug me :-)

    -stvn