David H. Burns <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:

> > For one, OOP more closely models how many people think of problems, 
> > while functional programming more closely models how mathematicians 
> > think of problems.  

> ??!! Though the second clause of this sentence seems true  to me, nothing
>   that I have read or heard in a long time seems so obviously false!

  And exactly what is it that makes it false?

  Object-oriented programming closely matches the thought process of people.
OOP can be deconstructed into to most basic elements: Concepts and algorithms.

  People think about things conceptually. For example, you can have one pen,
one car, one dog, and so on.

  Moreover, people use hierarchies of concepts. Some concepts are more
abstract while other concepts are more concrete. For example, the concept
of "animal" is more abstract than the concept of "dog" or "cat", which are
more concrete. Moreover, there's a hierarchical relationship between these
concepts: A dog is an animal, and a cat is an animal (but a dog is not a cat).

  Concepts can have properties to them. For example a dog has color, weight,
gender, race, etc. These properties can be different for different dogs.
Likewise the concept of "book" can have many properties, including its title,
author, date of publication, cover picture, table of contents, and so on
(all of which in themselves are also concepts).

  The other basic element of OOP is algorithms. These can be thought in the
same way as food recipes. Food recipes use some concepts (ingredients, cooking
utensils, etc) and a list of instructions on how to prepare the meal.

  This is the way people think naturally, and object-oriented programming
simulates this kind of design: It defines concepts (which may be hierarchical)
and algorithms on what to do with those concepts.

  Now please explain to me exactly what here is "so obviously false"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message