in computer languages, often a function definition looks like this:
subroutine f (x1, x2, ...) {
variables ...
do this or that
}
in advanced languages such as LISP family, it is not uncommon to define
functions inside a function. For example:
subroutine f (x1, x2, ...) {
variables...
subroutine f1 (x1...) {...}
subroutine f2 (x1...) {...}
}
often these f1 f2 inner functions are used inside f, and are not
relevant outside of f. Such power of the language gradually developed
into a style of programing. For example:
subroutine a_surface () {
coordinatesList = ...;
subroutine translate (distance) {...}
subroutine rotate (angle) {..}
}
such a style is that the a_surface is no longer viewed as a function.
But instead, a boxed set of functions, centered around a piece of data.
And, all functions for manipulating this piece of data are all embodied
in this function. For example:
subroutine a_surface (arg) {
coordinatesList = ...
subroutine translate (distance) {set coordinatesList to translated
version}
subroutine rotate (angle) {set coordinatesList to rotated version}
subroutine return () {return coordinatesList}
if (no arg) {return coordinatesList}
else { apply arg to coordinatesList }
}
In this way, one uses a_surface as a data, which comes with its owe set
of functions:
mySurface = a_surface();
a_surface(rotate(angle)); # now the surface data has been rotated
a_surface(translate(distance)); # now its translated
myNewSurface = a_surface(return())
So now, a_surface is no longer viewed as a subroutine, but a boxed set
of things centered around a piece of data. All functions that work on
the data are included in the boxed set. This paradigm available in
functional languages has refined so much so that it spread to other
groups that it became knows as Object Oriented Programing, and complete
languages with new syntax catered to such scheme emerged.
In such languages, instead of writing them like this:
mySurface = a_surface();
a_surface(rotate(angle));
the syntax is changed to like this, for example:
mySurface = new a_surface();
mySurfaceRotated = mySurface.rotate(angle);
In such languages, the super subroutine a_surface is no longer called a
function or subroutine. They are now called a "Class". And now the
variable "mySurface = a_surface()" is now called a "Object". The
subroutines inside the function a_surface() is no longer called
inner-subroutines. They are called "Methods".
This style of programing and language have become so fanatical that in
such dedicated languages like Java, everything in the language are
"Classes". One can no longer just define a variable or subroutine.
Instead, one creates these meta-subroutine "Classes". Everything one do
are inside Classes. And one assign variables inside these Classes to
create "Objects". And one uses "Methods" to manipulate Objects. In this
fashion, even data types like numbers, strings, and lists are no longer
atomic data types. They are now Classes.
For example, in Java, a string is a class String. And inside the class
String, there are Methods to manipulate strings, such as finding the
number of chars, or extracting parts of the string. This can get very
complicated. For example, in Java, there are actually two Classes of
strings: One is String, and the other is StringBuffer. Which one to use
depends on whether you intend to change the data.
So, a simple code like this in normal languages:
a = "a string";
b = "another one";
c = join(a,b);
print c;
or in lisp style
(set a "a string")
(set b "another one")
(set c (join a b))
(print c)
becomes in pure OOP languages:
public class test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String a = new String("a string");
String b = new String("another one");
StringBuffer c = new StringBuffer(40);
c.append(a); c.append(b);
System.out.println(c.toString());
}
}
here, the "new String" creates a String object. The "new
StringBuffer(40)"
creates the changeable string object StringBuffer, with room for 40
chars. "append" is a method of StringBuffer. It is used to join two
Strings.
Notice the syntax "c.append(a)", which we can view it as calling a
inner subroutine "append", on a super subroutine that has been assigned
to c, where, the inner subroutine modifies the inner data by appending
a to it.
And in the above Java example, StringBuffer class has another method
"toString()" used to convert this into a String Class, necessary
because System.out.println's parameter requires a String type, not
StringBuffer.
For a example of the complexity of classes and methods, see the Java
documentation for the StringBuffer class at
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/lang/StringBuffer.html
in the same way, numbers in Java have become a formalization of many
classes: Double, Float, Integer, Long... and each has a bunch of
"methods" to operate or convert from one to the other.
Instead of
aNumber = 3;
print aNumber^3;
in Java the programer needs to master the ins and outs of the several
number classes, and decide which one to use. (and if a program later
needs to change from one type of number to another, it is often
cumbersome.)
This Object Oriented Programing style and dedicated languages (such as
C++, Java) have become a fad like wild fire among the programing
ignoramus mass in the industry. Partly because of the data-centric new
perspective, partly because the novelty and mysticism of new syntax and
jargonization.
It is especially hyped by the opportunist Sun Microsystems with the
inception of Java, internet, and web applications booms around 1995. At
those times, OOP (and Java) were thought to revolutionize the industry
and solve all software engineering problems, in particular by certain
"reuse of components" concept that was thought to come with OOP.
As part of this new syntax and purity, where everything in a program is
of Classes and Objects and Methods, many many complex issues and
concept have arisen in OOP.
we now know that the jargon Class is originally and effectively just a
boxed set of data and subroutines, all defined inside a subroutine. And
the jargon "Object" is just a variable that has been set to this super
subroutine. And the inner subroutines are what's called Methods.
-----------------
because of psychological push for purity, in Java there are no longer
plain subroutines. Everything is a method of some class. Standard
functions like opening a file, square root a number, for loop thru a
list, if else branching statements, or simple arithmetic operations...
must now some how become a method of some class. In this way, the OOP
Hierarchy is born.
Basic data types such as now the various classes of numbers, are now
grouped into a Number class hierarchy, each class having their own set
of methods. The characters, string or other data types, are lumped into
one hierarchy class of data types. Many types of lists (variously known
as arrays, vectors, lists, hashes...), are lumped into a one hierarchy,
with each node Classe having their own set methods as appropriate. Math
functions, are lumped into some math class hierarchy.
Now suppose the plus operation +, where does it go? Should it become
methods of the various classes under Number headings, or should it be
methods of the Math class set? Each language deals with these issues
differently. As a example, see this page for the hierarchy of Java's
core language classes:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/lang/package-tree.html
The hierarchy concept is so entangled in pure OOP such that OOP is
erroneously thought of as languages with a hierarchy. (there are now
also so-called Object-Oriented databases that are centered on the
concept of all data are trees ...)
Normally in a program, when we want to do some operation we just call
the subroutine on some data. Such as
open(this_file)
square(4)
But now with the pure OOP style, there can no longer be just a number
or this_file path, because everything now must be a Object. So, the
"this_file", usually being just a string representing the path to a
file on the disk, is now some "file object". Initiated by something
like
this_file = new File("path to file");
where this file class has a bunch of methods such as reading or writing
to it.
see this page for the complexity of the IO tree
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/io/package-tree.html
see this page for the documentation of the File class itself, along
with its 40 or so methods and other things.
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/java/io/File.html
Tomorrow i shall cover more manmade jargons and complexities arising
out of the OOP hype, in particular Java.
instantiation
initializer, constructor, assessor
access level specifier
abstract class and abstract methods
instance methods and class methods
interface, inheritance, polymorphism.
Xah
···@xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> wrote in message
·····························@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> public class test {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> String a = new String("a string");
> String b = new String("another one");
> StringBuffer c = new StringBuffer(40);
> c.append(a); c.append(b);
> System.out.println(c.toString());
> }
> }
Actually, it can be as simple as:
public class test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String c = new String("a string"+" another one");
System.out.println(c);
}
}
I will not get into your "history" of the "OOP hype".
"Dan Perl" <·······@rogers.com> wrote in message
···························@rogers.com...
> Actually, it can be as simple as:
> public class test {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> String c = new String("a string"+" another one");
> System.out.println(c);
> }
> }
I forgot. It can be even simpler:
public class test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("a string"+" another one");
}
}
Dan Perl wrote:
> Actually, it can be as simple as:
> public class test {
There is no "public" or "class" in C. Please don't post such trash to
comp.lang.c. In fact, C++ is not topical in any of the five newsgroups
you posted to. I don't know where you're posting from, so I apologize to
the perl, python, lisp, scheme, and C people who see this in their
newsgroups. Followup-To set to comp.lang.c++ where you can play with
your bloated language all you wish.
Martin Ambuhl <·······@earthlink.net> writes:
| Dan Perl wrote:
|
| > Actually, it can be as simple as:
| > public class test {
|
| There is no "public" or "class" in C. Please don't post such trash to
| comp.lang.c. In fact, C++ is not topical in any of the five
But, it was anything but C++. Maybe Java.
--
Gabriel Dos Reis
···@integrable-solutions.net
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Martin Ambuhl <·······@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> | Dan Perl wrote:
> |
> | > Actually, it can be as simple as:
> | > public class test {
> |
> | There is no "public" or "class" in C. Please don't post such trash to
> | comp.lang.c. In fact, C++ is not topical in any of the five
>
> But, it was anything but C++. Maybe Java.
>
And why is Java topical for any of the five newsgroups he spewed on,
which deal with perl, python, lisp, scheme, and C? There must be a high
correlation between using Java and idiocy.
Xah Lee wrote his usual masturbatory crap:
Lisp is not topical in 3 of the 5 newsgroups you spewed on.
Java is not topical in 5 of the 5 newsgroups you spewed on.
Get your head out your butt and post to Java newsgroups if you want and
they'll have you. Are you inflicting this crap on the rest of us
because the Java people know you to be a troll?
Followup-to set to comp.lang.java.advocacy where it might belong.
Xah Lee wrote:
> [...]
> Tomorrow i shall cover more manmade jargons and complexities arising
> out of the OOP hype, in particular Java. [...]
I hope you will not, or that if you do so you will
do it elsewhere. Go pound sand.
--
Eric Sosman
·······@acm-dot-org.invalid
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
[snip]
If you must post a followup to this, please drop comp.lang.c from the
newsgroups header. I can't speak for the other newsgroups, but it's
definitely off-topic here in comp.lang.c. Thank you.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Good post.
First article that demistifies this OO centered approach
in quite a long time.
This approach has its strength, but also has it weakness,
it is not the solution for every problem appearing in
data processing.
jacob navia <·····@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Good post.
>
> First article that demistifies this OO centered approach
> in quite a long time.
I have no idea whether it was "good" or not, but it was blatantly
off-topic in at least comp.lang.c, and probably all the other
newsgroups to which it was cross-posted. Jacob, please don't
encourage this kind of newsgroup abuse.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ·····@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
jacob navia wrote:
>
> Good post.
>
> First article that demistifies this OO centered approach
> in quite a long time.
>
> This approach has its strength, but also has it weakness,
> it is not the solution for every problem appearing in
> data processing.
Xah Lee is a known troll, who likes to crosspost to many OT groups
and stir up the ants. F'ups set.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
"Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
Ah, you again... ;-)
> becomes in pure OOP languages:
Since you seem to be interested in "pure OOP" languages, I shall
mention that C++ and Java are NOT pure OOP languages (they still have
basic types and functions that are no object or method).
You want Smalltalk. Fetch Squeak http://www.squeak.org, Go learn
Smalltalk and ask your next questions to comp.lang.smalltalk.
> public class test {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
> String a = new String("a string");
> String b = new String("another one");
> StringBuffer c = new StringBuffer(40);
> c.append(a); c.append(b);
> System.out.println(c.toString());
> }
> }
Transcript show: ( "a string" , "another one" ).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
From: Cesar Rabak
Subject: Re: what's OOP's jargons and complexities?
Date:
Message-ID: <41FD17CF.4090707@acm.org>
Pascal Bourguignon escreveu:
> "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> Ah, you again... ;-)
>
>
>>becomes in pure OOP languages:
>
>
> Since you seem to be interested in "pure OOP" languages, I shall
> mention that C++ and Java are NOT pure OOP languages (they still have
> basic types and functions that are no object or method).
>
> You want Smalltalk. Fetch Squeak http://www.squeak.org, Go learn
> Smalltalk and ask your next questions to comp.lang.smalltalk.
>
>
>
>>public class test {
>>public static void main(String[] args) {
>>String a = new String("a string");
>>String b = new String("another one");
>>StringBuffer c = new StringBuffer(40);
>>c.append(a); c.append(b);
>>System.out.println(c.toString());
>>}
>>}
>
>
> Transcript show: ( "a string" , "another one" ).
>
Pascal,
In squeak, the above fragment has to be�:
Transcript show: 'a string' , 'another one'.
The output in the Transcript would be slightly better if one of the
strings to be concatenated gets an space so they do not appear 'glued'
in the output: "a stringanother one".
--
Cesar Rabak
[1] in fact, I cannot remember no Smalltalk dialect where strings are
written in double quotes, but world is full of variation ;-)
Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon escreveu:
> > "Xah Lee" <···@xahlee.org> writes:
> > Ah, you again... ;-)
> >
> >>becomes in pure OOP languages:
> > Since you seem to be interested in "pure OOP" languages, I shall
> > mention that C++ and Java are NOT pure OOP languages (they still have
> > basic types and functions that are no object or method). You want
> > Smalltalk. Fetch Squeak http://www.squeak.org, Go learn
> > Smalltalk and ask your next questions to comp.lang.smalltalk.
> >
> >>public class test {
> >>public static void main(String[] args) {
> >>String a = new String("a string");
> >>String b = new String("another one");
> >>StringBuffer c = new StringBuffer(40);
> >>c.append(a); c.append(b);
> >>System.out.println(c.toString());
> >>}
> >>}
> > Transcript show: ( "a string" , "another one" ).
> >
> Pascal,
>
> In squeak, the above fragment has to be�:
>
> Transcript show: 'a string' , 'another one'.
>
> The output in the Transcript would be slightly better if one of the
> strings to be concatenated gets an space so they do not appear 'glued'
> in the output: "a stringanother one".
>
> --
> Cesar Rabak
>
> [1] in fact, I cannot remember no Smalltalk dialect where strings are
> written in double quotes, but world is full of variation ;-)
Indeed. I launched squeak to test it, and used there single quotes,
but then I did not copy-and-paste, but retyped the sentence, and my
fingers know that strings are within double-quotes.
Otherwise, I just tried to reproduce Xag's program bug-for-bug.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In deep sleep hear sound,
Cat vomit hairball somewhere.
Will find in morning.
From: Cesar Rabak
Subject: Re: what's OOP's jargons and complexities?
Date:
Message-ID: <41FD3C74.6080303@acm.org>
Pascal Bourguignon escreveu:
> Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
>
[snipped]
>>Cesar Rabak
>>
>>[1] in fact, I cannot remember no Smalltalk dialect where strings are
>>written in double quotes, but world is full of variation ;-)
>
>
> Indeed. I launched squeak to test it, and used there single quotes,
> but then I did not copy-and-paste, but retyped the sentence, and my
> fingers know that strings are within double-quotes.
> Otherwise, I just tried to reproduce Xag's program bug-for-bug.
I see, you take more time to read the full specification
LOL
Xah Lee wrote:
> in computer languages, often a function definition looks like this:
> ···@xahlee.org
> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
Your ideas are original, insightful and simply reflect incredibly deep
creative genius. I have read your work and I want to hire you for
highly classified work in software design and philosophical writing.
Would you possibly be available to meet with me in my secret mountain
compound to discuss terms?
Larry
"Larry" <············@yahoo.com> writes:
> Xah Lee wrote:
> > in computer languages, often a function definition looks like this:
>
> > ···@xahlee.org
> > http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
>
> Your ideas are original, insightful and simply reflect incredibly deep
> creative genius. I have read your work and I want to hire you for
> highly classified work in software design and philosophical writing.
> Would you possibly be available to meet with me in my secret mountain
> compound to discuss terms?
>
> Larry
You forgot to mention the coordinates of your secret mountain compound:
28 deg 5 min N, 86 deg 58 min E
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
Up spake Pascal Bourguignon:
> You forgot to mention the coordinates of your secret mountain compound:
> 28 deg 5 min N, 86 deg 58 min E
True ICBM co-ordinates need altitude. See headers.
--
-trent
<foo> I honestly don't know how to be Catholic.
<bar> Do everything you do now, but feel guilty about it.
From: Cesar Rabak
Subject: Re: what's OOP's jargons and complexities?
Date:
Message-ID: <41FD1862.9050804@acm.org>
Pascal Bourguignon escreveu:
> "Larry" <············@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>>Xah Lee wrote:
>>
>>>in computer languages, often a function definition looks like this:
>>
>>> ···@xahlee.org
>>> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
>>
>>Your ideas are original, insightful and simply reflect incredibly deep
>>creative genius. I have read your work and I want to hire you for
>>highly classified work in software design and philosophical writing.
>>Would you possibly be available to meet with me in my secret mountain
>>compound to discuss terms?
>>
>>Larry
>
>
> You forgot to mention the coordinates of your secret mountain compound:
>
> 28 deg 5 min N, 86 deg 58 min E
>
Pascal!!
You spoiled a carefully kept Larry's secret. . . now it will have to
change his compound. . .
Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon escreveu:
> > "Larry" <············@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >>Xah Lee wrote:
> >>
> >>>in computer languages, often a function definition looks like this:
> >>
> >>> ···@xahlee.org
> >>> http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
> >>
> >>Your ideas are original, insightful and simply reflect incredibly deep
> >>creative genius. I have read your work and I want to hire you for
> >>highly classified work in software design and philosophical writing.
> >>Would you possibly be available to meet with me in my secret mountain
> >>compound to discuss terms?
> >>
> >>Larry
> > You forgot to mention the coordinates of your secret mountain
> > compound: 28 deg 5 min N, 86 deg 58 min E
> >
> Pascal!!
>
> You spoiled a carefully kept Larry's secret. . . now it will have to
> change his compound. . .
I did not precise the seconds and 100th of seconds on purpose. Let
people wander around a trapezoid of about: 11.6 km x 10.2 km, which at
that location should be exacting enough.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
In deep sleep hear sound,
Cat vomit hairball somewhere.
Will find in morning.
Grumble <·······@kma.eu.org> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>> You forgot to mention the coordinates of your secret mountain compound:
>>
>> 28 deg 5 min N, 86 deg 58 min E
>
> Mount Everest?
Shhh!
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:21:38 GMT, Bradd W. Szonye <··········@szonye.com>
wrote:
Just started playing with cl-ppcre.
Has anyone created a tutorial for it's use?
Do you have some example code?
Cant seem to find any with a search.
(just thought I could save some time..)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
"John Thingstad" <··············@chello.no> writes:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:21:38 GMT, Bradd W. Szonye
> <··········@szonye.com> wrote:
>
>
> Just started playing with cl-ppcre.
> Has anyone created a tutorial for it's use?
> Do you have some example code?
> Cant seem to find any with a search.
> (just thought I could save some time..)
The docs are quite good.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel ·····@javamonkey.com
Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp