Talk:Object-oriented programming: Difference between revisions
TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) I would like to rename this to object theory |
No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
And as usual, if I don't see an object, I will go ahead. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 13:44 23 May 2003 (UTC) |
And as usual, if I don't see an object, I will go ahead. -- [[User:TakuyaMurata|Taku]] 13:44 23 May 2003 (UTC) |
||
If you want a separate article called [[object theory]] that explains differnet methods of using objects in programming languages then fine. But the aspects of the OO paradigm discussed in this article (abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance) is a vast subject that deserves a least a whole page devoted to it. What you have us call it? OOP is the correct the universally understood term used for these concepts. [[User:Mintguy|Mintguy]] 14:01 23 May 2003 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:01, 23 May 2003
I would like to rename this to object theory. I understand object-oriented programming is the most common term and nearly no one uses a word like object theory instead of it. But the trouble with the current title is OOP is a POV'd term. The situation is similar to that in socialism or communism. The majority of people claim class, inheritance and encapslation are foundamental aspects of OOP but some argue inheritance is not always necessary, for instance. It doesn't matter who is right. The fact is there are disputes regarding the definition of object-oriented programming. So it would be troublesome with the current name as some claim inheritance is an aspect of class-based OOP then the article sholdn't cover, while some say inheritance is a foundamental of OOP and there is no reason that the article doesn't cover it. I don't think such debate would be settled. The benefit of the title object theory is it is more abstract term. It can discuss languages before object-oriented programming. Ada8 something supports objects but is usually considered not OOP. Then where we should discuss such? A separate article? The title object theory implies it is about programming aspect regarding objects. It is a broader term that can contain class-based OOP, object-based programming and so on. Subprogram is an good example. People hardly uses a term subprogram over subroutines or functions. But in encyclopedia, use of such an abstract term is preferable because if the article named function, it implies a subprogram should be a function like in math, which is not the case. If named subroutine, it tends to emphasizes a behavior as side-effect and it makes hard to talk about function in functional languages. OOP is a similar case.
And as usual, if I don't see an object, I will go ahead. -- Taku 13:44 23 May 2003 (UTC)
If you want a separate article called object theory that explains differnet methods of using objects in programming languages then fine. But the aspects of the OO paradigm discussed in this article (abstraction, encapsulation, polymorphism and inheritance) is a vast subject that deserves a least a whole page devoted to it. What you have us call it? OOP is the correct the universally understood term used for these concepts. Mintguy 14:01 23 May 2003 (UTC)