4 ms·

She developed the axiomatic theory in a later book: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/abstraction-and-specification-program-development https://mitpress.mit.edu/b

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

>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.