This idea that there is generality in the specific is of far-reaching importance.
-- DouglasHofstadter GoedelEscherBach
Objects are ideas built out of ideas.
Mine are built out of bytes.
Anything you can do with objects you can do with ideas. Objects are merely concepts written down in a formal language.
I can't garbage collect ideas.
Is this an attempt at a definition of OO? I find it a little fuzzy. It also hints of the "OO should model the real world" point of view, which perhaps is not a majority opinion based on past debates.
Objects are merely representations of things in the real world and have been configured to reside in a machine.
Only some objects represent things in the real world. Others don't. And all objects
are things in the real world.
Objects are but one concept the mind employs in Computing. The idea consists of representative Objects built in a StorageSpace?
, as structures which are encountered and employed by intervening procedural schemas.
Objects are ideas, but ideas are not objects. Ideas are expressed using objects, but are not complete within objects or dimensional space. They exist in a space of their own - IdeaSpace?
Hammers are ideas, but ideas are not hammers. Ideas are expressed using hammers, but are not complete within hammers.
I see. So the summary of this page is, if the only idea you have is a hammer, then you're going to get nailed by your objects. That explains a lot of software. ;-)
yes? I might add ...RealizedInaKnownWayOnaPhysicalSubstrate?
. Otherwise they are - well - only ideas. I think these two conditions are essential:
- known structure allows to systematically reason about the structure.
- physically realized allows to change and interact with it.
The former is implicit in the sentence above: "written down in a formal language" is just one way to express it. But it is not exactly correct: The structure of the objects is written down, not the objects themselves (though they could) at least not in general.