Re: class/subclass and the dominance of object-oriented programming

Amirouche

the problem is scale and complexity, l
Due to cognitive limitations of humans, there is only so much human can
conceptualilze/compute
To organise classes and objects is comparable perhaps to categories and
subcategories
The beauty of OO was that it used encapsulation, inheritance and other
things which I do not remember
so you can see OO as type of method that implements category theory,
It does come with limitations,
There are many ways OO can be used in parallel to sequenntial programming
what is your experience then?
how do you structure a software /system domain before you start coding if
not using objects?

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 3:32 AM Amirouche Boubekki <
amirouche.boubekki@gmail.com> wrote:

> I going through the Wikipedia article
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation_and_reasoning
>
> I find the following sentence very interesting:
>
> > the frame communities and the rule-based researchers realized that there
> was a synergy between their approaches. Frames were good for representing
> the real world, described as classes, subclasses, slots (data values) with
> various constraints on possible values
>
> That goes against my own experience where the class/subclass hierarchy
> does not help with system design, in fact, it constrains a programming
> language in a framework that leads to broken architectures. Class and
> subclass I think should be the exception, not the rule. It is more and
> more plausible to me that thinking in terms of hierarchies is a social
> heritage that comes from the concentration of power. It is not
> necessary. One or two levels of trees can help understand a problem
> better, but not generalized trees. It seems to me, the class/subclass
> thing that is embodied in the programming language community as
> Object-Oriented Programming was forced by western / european natural
> language heritage because of the structure of sentences in English and
> French and other languages where the subject comes before the verb
> followed by "complements". It leads to a notation in English that easy
> to read like a sentence:
>
>   amirouche.likes(scheme, programming, language)
>
> I am not saying, one should break everything apart and rebuild.
> So-called, Object-Oriented-Programming bolt several things together
> that must be taken apart, studied separately and carefully.
>
> NB: If mathematicians were stuck with subject-verb-complement
> notation, I bet we would not have computers as of yet.
>
>