3 ms·

We were? I thought the question was, "Why shouldn't we teach that objects model real-world things?" The answer is that in many cases, the real-world things sh

We were? I thought the question was, "Why shouldn't we teach that objects model real-world things?" The answer is that in many cases, the real-world things should not be represented as objects; I gave an example of such a case. If a student is being told that objects model real-world things and has internalized that, then when they are presented with the problem of simulating an LCR circuit, it is very likely that they will do the wrong thing and create classes for circuit components, and a class for circuits as a whole. Further, "dogs and mammals" or "windows and doors" are extremely contrived examples. The fact that you have to invoke an artificial problem just to illustrate this point should be an indication that you are doing something wrong. On the other hand, simulating an LCR circuit is a real-world problem and one that students will probably be asked to solve as a homework assignment (e.g. in a differential equations course).

dhimes 13y ago
Just because some things should not be represented as objects doesn't mean that nothing should. And mammals and dogs as a concrete example- a metaphor, if you will- is an example of a powerful way to teach abstract ideas, not an indication that something is wrong. What I would find enlightening is how the mammal-dog relationship fails, not how there is something out there for which the model may not fit.
- velis_vel 13y ago
  The problem with 'dog is a mammal' is that there's basically no obvious scenario in which you'd actually be modeling things this way unless you're trying to build some kind of ecosystem simulation or whatever. If you want to teach people, not only what inheritance is but why it's useful, you need to use a situation where inheritance makes things easier.
  - dhimes 13y ago
    Here's an example that's visual: You are putting interaction widgets on the screen- they display some text, perhaps some other visual indicator, and have a button or text area or slider or something on them (there are some of each). Your base class has the setup: the window/panel/whatever-your-language-calls it, the place where the text goes, and the place where the variable widget goes. All of these widgets inherit the base class, and only differ in the user response portion. This makes it very easy to change the interaction style.

dhimes 13y ago

Just because some things should not be represented as objects doesn't mean that nothing should. And mammals and dogs as a concrete example- a metaphor, if you will- is an example of a powerful way to teach abstract ideas, not an indication that something is wrong. What I would find enlightening is how the mammal-dog relationship fails, not how there is something out there for which the model may not fit.

velis_vel 13y ago
The problem with 'dog is a mammal' is that there's basically no obvious scenario in which you'd actually be modeling things this way unless you're trying to build some kind of ecosystem simulation or whatever. If you want to teach people, not only what inheritance is but why it's useful, you need to use a situation where inheritance makes things easier.
- dhimes 13y ago
  Here's an example that's visual: You are putting interaction widgets on the screen- they display some text, perhaps some other visual indicator, and have a button or text area or slider or something on them (there are some of each). Your base class has the setup: the window/panel/whatever-your-language-calls it, the place where the text goes, and the place where the variable widget goes. All of these widgets inherit the base class, and only differ in the user response portion. This makes it very easy to change the interaction style.