This reminds me of Luca Cardelli's theory of objects: http://books.google.com/books?id=4xT3LgCPP5UC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&source=bl&ots=9FMwvzLe9M&sig=U3K5GwytAgpPWXi

This reminds me of Luca Cardelli's theory of objects: http://books.google.com/books?id=4xT3LgCPP5UC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&source=bl&ots=9FMwvzLe9M&sig=U3K5GwytAgpPWXi4ZwgI8EhJ3ac&hl=en&ei=nE4dS-TsMI2VtgeS7O3lAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=4xT3LgCPP5UC&pg=PA7&#38... According to Luca the correct way to think about objects is not as the entities of the software model, but as the construction materials for the software model. He uses the analogy of making a physical model of the solar system. In your model the planets don't move themselves, they're moved by gears, tracks, and motors. So it could be entirely appropriate to think of the pacman board being made up of tiles and those being true, properly understood, OOP objects. I think he would say that "The metaphor of objects can go too far by making us try to create objects that are too much inspired by the real world." is exactly how not to think about OOP in the first place.