Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 18:46:30 +0000
Subject: Re: What is OOP?
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
References: <d8a5a0d563f0b9b78b34711d12d4975a7941f53a.camel@gmail.com>
 <86frn6og85.fsf@linuxsc.com>
 <853d65692ada3865dafc2c6010539ed20e4e348c.camel@gmail.com>
 <vile40$3k3j8$1@dont-email.me>
 <f4160b394cf17e59f10b2ed1c02db87045849f4a.camel@gmail.com>
 <vinovj$aonc$1@dont-email.me>
 <21243d708de746fc708ba7b9eeaf5a5e2b655518.camel@gmail.com>
 <vj0b68$2mqem$1@dont-email.me>
 <4253cd7cea02cd1bbbd0cebd18af9673ba2199a5.camel@gmail.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 10:46:44 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4253cd7cea02cd1bbbd0cebd18af9673ba2199a5.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <YoecnZnC9d6bBcn6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 130
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-YyRtTXoGeoHS6Yc6jCM8vT+VvGMpctL8aur0UnXzewlAQOQnLTBb2EGp00YTEY9msA/LKTXmKliivem!eWkG74DH4RSjvhBJkTJ40pjcDa1M/+lcsUH3agWIa4+FaX7ZKOBggJC9c0oHsZQkIYVyaywCpuFy
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 7881

On 12/07/2024 09:01 AM, wij wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-12-06 at 18:16 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 12/3/2024 4:44 PM, wij wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 12:16 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 12/3/2024 2:38 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2024-12-02 at 14:59 -0800, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/2/2024 12:49 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 2024-12-01 at 20:34 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>>>>>> wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In response to the question of the subject line...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because a program is being written in a language that has
>>>>>>>> functions doesn't mean that what is being done is functional
>>>>>>>> programming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just because a program is being written in a language that has
>>>>>>>> classes and objects doesn't mean that what is being done is
>>>>>>>> object-oriented programming.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> More than anything else object-oriented programming is a mindset
>>>>>>>> or a programming methodology.  It helps if the language being
>>>>>>>> used supports classes, etc, but the methodology can be used even
>>>>>>>> in languages that don't have them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A quote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         My guess is that object-oriented programming will be in the
>>>>>>>>         1980s what structured programming was in the 1970s.
>>>>>>>>         Everyone will be in favor of it.  Every manufacturer will
>>>>>>>>         promote his products as supporting it.  Every manager will
>>>>>>>>         pay lip service to it.  Every programmer will practice it
>>>>>>>>         (differently).  And no one will know just what it is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That paragraph is taken from a paper written more than 40 years
>>>>>>>> ago.  The prediction came true with a vengeance, even more than
>>>>>>>> the author expected.  Most of what has been written about object
>>>>>>>> oriented programming was done by people who didn't understand it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two more quotes, these from Alan Kay:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         I invented the term "Object Oriented Programming," and C++
>>>>>>>>         is not what I had in mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Though Smalltalk's structure allows the technique now known
>>>>>>>>         as data abstraction to be easily (and more generally)
>>>>>>>>         employed, the entire thrust of its design has been to
>>>>>>>>         supersede the concept of data and procedures entirely;  to
>>>>>>>>         replace these with the more generally useful notions of
>>>>>>>>         activity, communication, and inheritance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for those information (I did not particularly study 'OOP').
>>>>>>>     From my >20 years of practice, I would say the object+action model
>>>>>>> works nearly perfectly. Particularly it is the same idea with
>>>>>>> abstract algebra. IOW, OOP is programming abstract algebra for
>>>>>>> general problems.
>>>>>>> I recently read a book (translation version)
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Motion-Action-Shapes-Thought/dp/046509306X
>>>>>>> OO is probably also how our brain works. So, yes, we don't absolutely need OO
>>>>>>> language to program in OO, OO is natural (thou C++ is very suitable. And, there
>>>>>>> may be other kind of good programming model).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note: A point in 'the' inheritance theory of OO is seriously false.
>>>>>>>           I can't say it right now, it is about inherited class has to delete
>>>>>>>           inherited member.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever messed around with cohort scheduling? Not sure why I am
>>>>>> thinking of that now after reading your response. Humm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/tr-2001-39.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Just like the reason libwy uses POSIX API, mostly, and does pretend it is not.
>>>>> If you want to understand the basic programming objects, try POSIX thread first
>>>>> (even just by reading the manual is helpful enough) not that from C++std library.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many books talk about POSIX threads in C. mess around those C codes, then
>>>>> you get the real thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fwiw, I used POSIX Threads for many years. Heck, I even used to converse
>>>> with the Man himself... ;^) Dave Butenhof over on c.p.t, back in its
>>>> glory days. He wrote an interesting book:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Programming-POSIX-Threads-David-Butenhof/dp/0201633922
>>>>
>>>> It was fun talking to him. :^)
>>>
>>> Yup, I remember those days, he was diligent answering all sorts of questions
>>> about pthreading. In the same period, c++ was super busy.
>>
>> :^D So you know the realm of those "good times" for sure!
>>
>>
>>>> So, I know how to use POSIX, and PThreads to boot. Then, when C/C++11
>>>> came out, well... I started to port some of my work over to it. They
>>>> work well and are more standard than PThreads in a sense?
>>>>
>>>> Fwiw, my pthread lib of choice over in the windows world was:
>>>>
>>>> https://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/
>>>>
>>>> I remember back when I won a brand new SunFire t2000 server (before they
>>>> were available for sale to the public) wrt the CoolThreads contest with
>>>> my experimental vZoom project. I used PThreads on Solaris for that. fun
>>>> times! :^D
>>>
>>> That made me feel I was a bit awkward. OK, let's say it C++'s fault.
>>>
>>
>> I need to find that old post over on c.p.t about a time when GCC sure
>> seemed to break a pthread_mutex_trylock function call, wrt its critical
>> section indeed.
>
> If it was about Linux Thread (changed to NPTL), it was full of bugs.
> libwy still contains old codes for Linux Thread not removed.
> I now focus on using  process, and planning to use process instead of thread
> for muti-tasking for the future (for the coming NPU, AI era, whatever).
> Also thanks to decades of practice of those 'C-people', process is relatively
> more mature than thread.
>
>

I like the idea of "term-graph re-writing" and "logic extraction"
and "shape modeling", that, between the "thoroughly abstract"
and "thoroughly concrete", is about a "spec language", pretty
much, for all things derived and adapted, as with regards to
all the tons lines procedural code and all the things.