5 ms·

> The thing with Object Orientation is that it has no basis in theory or science and is almost 100% art. Absolutely incorrect. The data part of OO is based on

> The thing with Object Orientation is that it has no basis in theory or science and is almost 100% art. Absolutely incorrect. The data part of OO is based on set theory as formalised in the database design research and type systems. The dynamic part of OO is based on finite state machines. The data abstraction and information hiding part is based on the work of barbara liskov (for which she won the Turing award) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>Absolutely incorrect. I said OO didn't have basis in theory or science. By basis I mean it wasn't derived from theory. Rather it was created as more of an "artistic" endeavor and later it was fit into a framework of an existing theory. You should know almost ANY system can be broken down to fit into an existing theory from a projectile object, to a flying plane, to the weather, to an object oriented programming language. Thus following that line of thought ANYTHING can be a part of a theory but I use the term "basis" to emphasize that something can be derived out of theory. >The data part of OO is based on set theory as formalised in the database design research and type systems. I highly disagree. Type systems are not exclusive to OO, additionally the OO type system allows for mutation which is basically not at all part of set theory at all. Also type systems and database systems didn't formalize set theory. Set theory comes from mathematics. >The dynamic part of OO is based on finite state machines. This I can agree. A state machine modifies a change of state which is closer to the definition of an object in OOP. >The data abstraction and information hiding part is based on the work of barbara liskov (for which she won the Turing award) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov This has more to do with the type system then it does with OOP. Also note if you read the paper. Her paper has no data, statistics, formal theory, rigor, theorems, proofs or axioms. So although she won the turing award, although this is a research paper... it is largely "artistic" in the sense I defined it. See the paper here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3043&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136... Note that her paper is important, I am not discounting it. But it is largely more in the realm of design then it is in the realm of theory and science.
- streetcat1 7y ago
  She developed the axiomatic theory in a later book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/abstraction-and-specification-program-development https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/abstraction-and-specification... Were she propose an axiomatic theory for OO interface design. Definitely not artistic. The only thing artistic in OO (as someone who practice it in the last 30 years), is finding the initial set of objects. But you will have this issue with any technique.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    >The only thing artistic in OO (as someone who practice it in the last 30 years), is finding the initial set of objects. But you will have this issue with any technique. OO is highly artistic. It's not just the initial set of objects you decide on, but you have to decide how each and every single object composes and which objects compose. There's multitudes of techniques for how to compose objects and when to compose: Inheritance, dependency injection, Object composition, etc, etc. Within each of these techniques you still have to write custom code, what is the parent, what is the child? What property overrides what? How does the parent use the injected object? etc etc... You are literally designing the system rather than operating within a theoretical framework. It is largely art. If you operated within the framework of an existing theory you would be able to much better predict the outcome of a system at scale, but because in OO you are creating the system from scratch for almost every application it is largely unpredictable. In mathematics all theorems flow from your choice of axioms. There is little room for deviation. Interface is not exclusive to OO. It's a seperate concept. I don't have access to that book so I can't say what she talks about in the book specifically but an interface is not exclusive to OO. The concept exists in mathematics as well which deals more with functions and types rather than objects. Additionally OO to my knowledge came later after her paper on abstraction. Alan Kay developed OO. Then OO as we use it today came when JAVA and C++ grafted parts of the concept into the framework of procedural languages. This is not deriving a language from theory, it's more of an organic evolution of concepts. This isn't bad, but it's not axiomatic, scientific or theoretical. It is art through and through. As I said, any system artificially created or not can be fit into the framework of some theory. There is a huge difference though between systems that are designed artistically vs systems that are derived from theoretical knowledge.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

>Absolutely incorrect. I said OO didn't have basis in theory or science. By basis I mean it wasn't derived from theory. Rather it was created as more of an "artistic" endeavor and later it was fit into a framework of an existing theory. You should know almost ANY system can be broken down to fit into an existing theory from a projectile object, to a flying plane, to the weather, to an object oriented programming language. Thus following that line of thought ANYTHING can be a part of a theory but I use the term "basis" to emphasize that something can be derived out of theory. >The data part of OO is based on set theory as formalised in the database design research and type systems. I highly disagree. Type systems are not exclusive to OO, additionally the OO type system allows for mutation which is basically not at all part of set theory at all. Also type systems and database systems didn't formalize set theory. Set theory comes from mathematics. >The dynamic part of OO is based on finite state machines. This I can agree. A state machine modifies a change of state which is closer to the definition of an object in OOP. >The data abstraction and information hiding part is based on the work of barbara liskov (for which she won the Turing award) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Liskov This has more to do with the type system then it does with OOP. Also note if you read the paper. Her paper has no data, statistics, formal theory, rigor, theorems, proofs or axioms. So although she won the turing award, although this is a research paper... it is largely "artistic" in the sense I defined it. See the paper here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136.3043&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.136... Note that her paper is important, I am not discounting it. But it is largely more in the realm of design then it is in the realm of theory and science.

streetcat1 7y ago
She developed the axiomatic theory in a later book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/abstraction-and-specification-program-development https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/abstraction-and-specification... Were she propose an axiomatic theory for OO interface design. Definitely not artistic. The only thing artistic in OO (as someone who practice it in the last 30 years), is finding the initial set of objects. But you will have this issue with any technique.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >The only thing artistic in OO (as someone who practice it in the last 30 years), is finding the initial set of objects. But you will have this issue with any technique. OO is highly artistic. It's not just the initial set of objects you decide on, but you have to decide how each and every single object composes and which objects compose. There's multitudes of techniques for how to compose objects and when to compose: Inheritance, dependency injection, Object composition, etc, etc. Within each of these techniques you still have to write custom code, what is the parent, what is the child? What property overrides what? How does the parent use the injected object? etc etc... You are literally designing the system rather than operating within a theoretical framework. It is largely art. If you operated within the framework of an existing theory you would be able to much better predict the outcome of a system at scale, but because in OO you are creating the system from scratch for almost every application it is largely unpredictable. In mathematics all theorems flow from your choice of axioms. There is little room for deviation. Interface is not exclusive to OO. It's a seperate concept. I don't have access to that book so I can't say what she talks about in the book specifically but an interface is not exclusive to OO. The concept exists in mathematics as well which deals more with functions and types rather than objects. Additionally OO to my knowledge came later after her paper on abstraction. Alan Kay developed OO. Then OO as we use it today came when JAVA and C++ grafted parts of the concept into the framework of procedural languages. This is not deriving a language from theory, it's more of an organic evolution of concepts. This isn't bad, but it's not axiomatic, scientific or theoretical. It is art through and through. As I said, any system artificially created or not can be fit into the framework of some theory. There is a huge difference though between systems that are designed artistically vs systems that are derived from theoretical knowledge.