»
you're reading...
Fundamentals

OO’ s Magic Cup

I believe,

A real cup is an entity but, never an OO’ s object.

Any classes are in your mind or your code but, not in the world.

  • This expression sounds some vague, it could lead to questions, such as the following comments by Vhanniet. An improved version as follow:
    Any classes are in your mind or your code but not in the real world outside the mind or the code.
    (Jan 26, 2012)

 

OO' s Cup

Often said that “a picture is worth a thousand words”.

I would rather believe that is true and, at least, to my poor English;-D

What you think about the picture?

Updated, 1 June:  change the title OO’s Cup to OO’s Magic Cup

Advertisements

About TY

interested in models & modeling, software, information systems, applications & engineering for enterprises

Discussion

7 thoughts on “OO’ s Magic Cup

  1. Hi TY!
    Some other ideas…
    “A real cup is an entity but, never an OO’ s object.”
    OO.Everting.Object.Cup is also an entity, but not the same kind. But for sure the real cup is not an OO object.

    “Any classes are in your mind or your code but, not in the world.”
    Do you think you actually know the world? Is’nt it a perception of the world in your mind?
    This blog is made of OO classes & objects at some point, and we use it. So these classes & objects are part of the real world, aren’t they?

    “Often said that “a picture is worth a thousand words”.”
    It all depends of what picture and what words and how you appreciate worthing!!

    There is a famous painting from René Magritte “Ceci n’est pas une pomme” (This is not an apple) : it shows an apple’s drawing… http://cllctr.com/view/4058951dd65a4a4273e0b745318e244f

    Anyway, you’re right: IT objects aren’t the real objects they represent… But IT objects are real objects too in the IT world!

    Posted by vhanniet | May 30, 2011, 15:42
    • Of course, all of them are parts of the real word but, that is to the third part.

      It’s a good example to what I want to say: René Magritte’ s apple in the painting is a good model but the cup in my picture is not because that, a real cup have not ears or hands, it never receive a message and filled with water for itself.

      Posted by TY | May 30, 2011, 18:49
    • Hi Vincent,

      I see your comment on Udi Dahan’s blog that: “As far as software is concerned, the software is the real world! So, modeling the world means modeling the software and its ecosystem. Our relationship with software is substantially immaterial…” It reminds me of this conversation. there is not convenient to reply, so do a little comment. It’s not convenient to reply a comment, so I write some words here.
      The term ‘real world’ is too broad (so I’ve been carefully changed using such terms, such as to use ‘outside computer’), in fact, I do agree you speech, “the software is the real world” (of course, to be, a part of, isn’t it?), and “modeling the world means modeling the software and its ecosystem” — the Three Spaces is what we modeling a part of real world that including software must (I think) based on.
      Further, the model of the software as an app system as a part of the world, is so-called black-box model but not white-box model. This distinction seems to be ignored to many ones? for example, perhaps there is no linear transformation or mapping between a black-box model and white-box model. What’s your comment?

      Posted by TY | March 9, 2012, 15:00
      • New try ;)
        Specifying what a piece of software has to do is business modeling applied to software construction. You call it black-box, and you are right: it places the software inside the “real world” ecosystem (and doing so there is no more difference between real-world without the software an real-world with it). Is input/output black-box modeling sufficient to specify what we put inside the box (white box)? No: it just defines constraints for the box.
        Modeling all this stuff would mean build a picture which ensure that what is in the box (white box) will easily and naturally allow answering to constraints evolution or new constraints coming from the ecosystem. This would be the best of the art of modeling: inception of a model that works with black-box and white-box and anticipate future needs which are just predictable facts from a good vision of the “real-world” ecosystem. May this work? I don’t believe. Modeling software is like doing business or choosing a God (!): you decide what viewpoint you need or believe in and you go. Is it close to the “real world” or not? You don’t know and even more, you can’t know. So better get focused on your software as your “real-world”. If you don’t succeed, no problem: just model a new world! Modeling is just like having faith… ;D

        Posted by vhanniet | March 11, 2012, 19:01
        • Hi, Your last opinion seems quite closed to Udi Dahan’s, but unfortunately, as a software developer, we never be mastering a software system: the God is the needs (here I do not say that it is the customer ;-) )
          And, of course, we can not place too much expectation to “anticipate future needs”, but we may develop a more adaptable app system which is able to deal with the changing needs. Just done some discussion that related to this topic at https://plus.google.com/u/0/108317453004035953066/posts/LiDP4nZ1oTr
          :)

          Posted by TY | March 11, 2012, 23:49
  2. In the early days of OO people started to model the real world, telling their domain experts things like “… thus your bill has a summation method that computes the overall sum”.
    The domain people just replied “???” and finally kicked the OO guys out of the office.

    The real and the virtual world are different, even if you use the same language.

    Somehow reminds me to the BPMN discussion these days.

    Posted by modelpractice | June 5, 2011, 06:41
    • Not only the OO guys. Somebody made the BPMN to attempt to bind everybody on the same ship which is mastered by themselves but the business analysts intended to kick them out? :-D

      Back the picture, some of OO guys like to say that OO is a natural way for humans to thinking the world, but the real world is never the OO style, even if in a human mind.

      Posted by TY | June 5, 2011, 13:37

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Archives

Subscribe notifications of new posts by email.

Join 62 other followers

%d bloggers like this: