![]() ![]() a paper object "is a" physical objectįunctions: a relationship between the parameter and the return value Inheritance: A particular relation between object A and object B where object A has a subset of the properties of object B. a ball is "in a" box (constraint on the location of the ball) A relation between object A and object B describes a constraint on some properties of A and B. Relation: A relationship between objects. ex: a cardboard box (made from paper, rectangular, contains stuff) On the other hand, if the representation is not the same (unintuitive), then the person has to go through the documentation/look over each line to match up the person's internal representation with the representation in code, making programming difficult (any large scale programming project).Ĭlass of Real World Objects: A set of things that has the same property. When the representation in code is the same as a person's understanding about a real world object ("common sense" or common understanding), the person can process and reason and be productive with the code with ease (like. ![]() Yet even with the amount of programs being written and problems about objects being solved, rather than converging on a complete representation of real-world objects, objects in programs seem to diverge, where an object from one project is different from an object from another project and is typically different from how a normal person thinks about the real world object. In fact, an argument can be made that the job of the programmer is to figure out a representation (real-world object -> code -> binary data) of a problem and a process to solve the said problem. The idea of objects helped programming with type-checking, encapsulation, code reduction, etc. Most programming languages have a concept of objects, and allow programmers to define them and describe relationships between objects. All this to say there is such a thing as "real-world objects," it is not arbitrary (and suggests that there is a right way and wrong way of describing things.) In addition, modern science has found mathematical relationships between classes of things with precision. People from different cultures that have different languages, even with a difference in nomenclature, typically have common words that describe sets of things the same way. Cars can be driven boxes are containers speakers produce sound. Human languages have the ability to talk about the state of the world, and all of them contain nouns, which rather than describing a particular thing, they are supposed to indicate a set of things that contain a certain property. Why are objects that we use in programming so vastly different from real-world objects? ![]() For reference, I know python, C++, C, JAVA, OCAML, LISP, prolog (in that order of familiarity). *quick note: I don't have much formal training in PL's, so if I'm wrong, please correct me. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |