1.
Day and night are objects of type time of Morning. Think of it like a Boolean, where it's true or false. Or something like that. :)

But you are right. Everything isn't an object. Anything that's physical can be represented as an object. Things that follow ideas usually can be, such as Calendar Date is comprised of a Month, Year, etc... SOme things can be but shouldn't, such as some parsers, where functional programming would be a little smarter.

2.
Nono. Programs are a tool to solve real world problems. If it's adding two numbers to solving pi to the 80th digit, yeah. But processes solve problems. The process of adding and pi are easily implemented as programs. There are a set of problems which cannot be solved in deterministic time. The halting problem for instance: If a given set of code will ever end. That is much easier to do for a human (right now).

3.
Part of the problem with a computer is, it's binary.. usually. It cannot represent some states easily. We can simulate it with tons of statistics, but that's as far as it goes. Expert systems accomplish things like this with prior inputs and confidence levels, which are just statistics. Same with spam, and baysian filters.

4.
Everything can be represented as an object. Data can always be represented by a graph. Sorting can always be implemented w/ an n log n algorithm. But it's not always the best representation.

---

Figuring out the relationships of how things fit isn't hard. It's preparing for the future that is hard. Simple patterns of usage in a current system is quite easy when you know what's going in. It's just tedious. Given a set of functions of a program, it can be segregated into a many different subsets, where things overlap. But solving a real world problem doesn't require knowledge of all subsets.. just the best ones. Problem is, when someone throws a fork into the mix.

Everything can be done with OO in one form or another. Not always great, not always terrible, but it can be done. Should it? No.

But the definition of OO is clear. It's simply a description of what something can do and what attributes it has. How the definitions of the "do's" and "attributes" are, how they are passed around, accessed and all, is both a sugar and a medicine. It makes things easier and enforces "good" patterns of usage. Java doens't do multiple inheritance for it's "good reasons". perl and c++ do. perl and php (till late) had no access modifiers.

OO appeals to orgnaized people. Not all the people it appeals to are organized and some organized people think OO is not that great.

People who write algorithms, like solving sorting issues and what not don't always flock to OOP since you are describing a process in it's simplest forms. Even then, it's not usually in a concrete language in its description, but in functional psuedo-code :)

---

---

Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!

Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.

Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.

Please read these before you post! —

• How do I compose an effective node title?
• How do I post a question effectively?
• Markup in the Monastery

Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:

a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr

You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)

	For:		Use:
	&		&
	<		&lt;
	>		&gt;
	[		&#91;
	]		&#93;

Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?

See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.