Hace unos años, creo que ahora ya no es más asi, pero tal vez me equivoque, en las clases de introducción a objetos se daba una metodología para aplicar al diseño con objetos que consistía en lo siguiente: a partir de los requerimientos de un determinado sistema, se debían subrayar los sustantivos; con toda seguridad, se afirmaba, éstos terminarán siendo las clases del system. In contrast, the verbs were going to give at least an idea of \u200b\u200bthe expected behavior of the resulting objects of those classes. It was obviously a method copied from entity relationship classes.
The vulgata computer, when to refer to objects, icons often used three-dimensional objects, which not only increases the confusion that the polysemy of the term implies, it is one thing an object in the sense of something something material, tangible, spatial dimensions, and quite another to a computational object.
Similarly, on many platforms in which we talk about objects, they also get confused with things. In HTML, for example, objects are inserted that are not nothing but files, the equivalent of the thing in the digital world.
This has led many to believe that objects are something like the Aristotelian substance brought to the digital world, ie that the model objects have to think in terms of entities or substances that are defined by their properties. To model objects means finding things and wonder what they are, what defines them, what properties they have. property is what is proper that defines the object would be something in himself.
The word order does not help try to clear up this misunderstanding, but reading any good code written with objects reveals that what is shaping are not things.
A computer object is defined in terms of behavior. When working with objects not matter so much what they are, or what purport to be or represent, but rather how they behave, how they interact with other objects. Understand the meaning of an object when we understand their behavior. Are decisions related to the behavior that makes us a deeper analysis and finding areas not covered, by their particular behaviors that deserve a special place. An object would then be a "pipeline", ie something that is defined by its behavior. As each message would be a "behavioreme" low expression "behavior." If the proposition is ideal that each perform a single action message, each message is then to atomic behavior, behavior that can not be broken in others.
This is the reason why programmers aims to change the class names, message names, the names of the arguments, because as we understand better that makes an object, only then start to understand and therefore as naming it.
If the objects are units of behavior, it is not referential function of language which is more useful to us. To understand the functioning of a given domain in terms of behavior, not in terms of what "is" is more useful to the story. Objects are units of behavior in a narrative, but a complete story, a narrative account of everything that happens and what can happen.
But the name "object" not so bad.
An object is observed, manipulated, known as a subject. The object paradigm thus show one end of the chain of knowledge: an object that is observed by a subject. Delete the subject, think in terms of objects that must be found and that have properties to be discovered, is to believe that there is a being that is already defined, a being that is identical to itself. But since this is not of being but of doing, that is, to see what objects are, the subject is paramount, because this see the behavior of objects is necessarily subjective . It is not disclosing a given reality but to build a new reality in which objects are defined by what the subject wants to do, or put another way, a model built on the basis of what the subject interprets objects do in reality.
The misconception is that a system with objects is an objective representation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment