Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> And then you realize that, although we call them "objects," they are
> really just abstract representations of certain pieces of information,
> and not really the objects we think of them as :)

.... yet the "objects" (some also refer to them as "instances", which may be a
more fitting term) are more concrete than the "classes" (or "types", as some
call them) - which again are more concrete than the "interfaces" (sometimes
known as "abstract classes" or "abstract types" in languages that don't
explicitly support the notion of interfaces) they implement...

Post a reply to this message