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.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: The world is not object oriented
by Anonymous Monk
in thread The world is not object oriented
by tilly
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |