HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Object-Oriented Methodologies - Class Specifications
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:44:02 GMT

johnson@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson) writes:

>Draw is definitely more debatable.  My guess is that if you ask a Circle
>to draw on a window, it just performs the DrawCircle operation on the
>window, which isn't all that bad.  But in general, different applications
>will want to draw on different things, and will want to interpret drawing
>differently.  Is color needed? Line-width?  Neither of these are attributes
>of Circles, so it seems unreasonable to make Circles be responsible for
>drawing.

>In Smalltalk, there is a separation between geometric objects and
>graphical objects.  A circle is not displayable.  Instead, you have
>to put a wrapper on it that includes color and line width information,
>as well as the display operations.

If Circle is a member of a family of objects which know how to draw
themselves on a Window, then the knowledge of Window by Circle is
proper.  One could argue that the family itself was improperly
coupled, since it represented two fundemental abstractions:  One, a
set of geometric objects.  And two: A set of objects which can be
drawn on a window.  It could enhance the reusability of the family if
the concept of the window were removed from the family, and some other
method were applied to allow drawing on the window.
--
Robert Martin                        Training courses offered in:
R. C. M. Consulting                       Object Oriented Analysis
2080 Cranbrook Rd.                        Object Oriented Design
Green Oaks, Il 60048 (708) 918-1004       C++
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Sun IDL front-end?
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:36:29 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department

In article <1992Sep2.171845.28417@cs.ucla.edu> tek@pram.cs.ucla.edu, I wrote:
> ...
>	At Object World, SunSoft announced a [IDL] compiler front end,
>	available on the Internet, royalty-free, to encourage people
>	to "build to the (OMG) standard," ...


I called SunSoft and found out that the IDL front-end is not quite out
yet.  When it comes out in a few weeks, it will be announced in OMG's
"First Class" magazine and probably in the comp.object newsgroup. It
will be available in a few weeks through the OMG server by e-mail or
ftp.

The IDL front-end is essentially the skeleton of a IDL to programming
language compiler. The basis of the front-end is YACC/LEX. It parses
the IDL, does syntax checking and the like and returns the syntax
tree. Its up to you to do the backend to generate code in the target
language binding. I am not sure how much semantic checking it does.

-ted

--
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:03:09 GMT
Subject: Re: O.M(...) vs M(...), and is the Real World O-O?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
From: insang@salmosa.kaist.ac.kr (Chung InSang)
Subject: Modeling inheritance hierarchy
Organization: KAIST in Seoul Korea
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 06:26:40 GMT


Is there anyone to know whether it is safe to assume that 
inheritance hierarchy of an object-oriented software is a complete lattice?

If not, which techniques can be used to deal with the problem?

I would appreciate any information on that problem.

insang

insang@salmosa.kaist.ac.kr




Newsgroups: comp.object
From: hal@netcom.com (Harold Schwab)
Subject: Book Info Request
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 11:49:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 


Recently in this newsgroup, reference was made to the book:
"Designing Object Oriented C++ Applications Using the Booch Method"
by Robert Martin published by Prentice Hall. I called Prentice Hall and they 
never heard of it. Can anyone supply an ISBN number or any further
info ?  Thanks alot.

Hal Schwab
hal@netcom.com

From: Neal.Sanche@ttlg.UUCP (Neal Sanche)
Sender: postmaster@ttlg.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Future Issues of Object
Date: 02 Sep 92  13:02:08 mst

DJL>  I would like to start a discussion about what people believe
DJL>  will be the critical issues in object technology in the next
DJL>  5 - 8 years. What solutions to these issues do you see and
DJL>  how will the solutions affect the object model?

I would tend to think that the evolution of object oriented
technology will lead to distributed object oriented systems.
Object persistance across networks and objects being passed over
phone lines would be a forseeable means of communicating.

This doesn't really imply a technological breakthrough, but more
a software technology. I am sure people will respond by saying
that Speed and Size will be important. Speed is definitely
important, but what if anything can be done to make things any
smaller? OOP technology can produce some very complicated and
large products. Computer systems are getting faster and are
gaining larger memory address spaces so why can't OOP technology
take that into account? Perhaps the sacrifice of speed and space
will lead to more intualtive and powerful systems. I think that
has already happened.

I am rambling. What do you think?

-Neal

 * OLX 2.1 TD * ((((((((HYPNOTIC))))))))((((((TAGLINE))))))))

 * Origin: Paradigm BBS: A programmer's paradise. (42:100/11)
Newsgroups: comp.object

In article ... Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com> writes:

   In article <a6bb2744@infoage.com>, bradcox@infoage.com (Brad Cox) writes:
   > Chris writes:
   >> What I *do* deny is that the ``natural'' way we see the world and our
   >> programs means that the underlying structure of the world is necessarily
   >> ``like that'', and that object models are more than an analogy for the
   >> world -- and that they are *worse*, for the purposes of understanding
   >> the world, than other models that we *do* have.
   >
   >Could this be the distinction you're belaboring? Computer-resident
   >objects invoke each other unilaterally. Objects in the real world
   >communicate bilaterally; through satisfaction of bi-directional
   >constraints instead of one simply invoking the other.

   Actually, I was contending the real world contains real objects with
   attributes and properties (is object-oriented) and based an argument that
   some kind of object-oriented A/D/P/etc. is therefore the best candidate
   for real-world modeling right now.

It so happens that I've recently continued reading ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous
Things'' (details available on request), which contains a detailed criticism of
the view Bob esposes and mentions in this paragraph. I am in no position (yet)
to effectively recreate the arguments, or to say how sound they are, but they
bear similarities to the views that I have proposed in previous messages, viz,
that ``objects'' are a construction of the human mind.

   >For example, computer objects do not abide by constraint relationships
   >such as like Newton's law; for every action there's an equal and
   >opposite reaction.

   Including physical laws calls for a simulation with some kind of physical-
   world model.  Such a model can be elegantly designed with an object-oriented
   model and I have presented at least one trivial way.  This means the
   object-oriented constructs are simply used to simulate and model the
   real-world.  For example, the "world" will enforce an equal and opposite
   reaction whenever an object undergoes some force in the world model.

Isn't this use of a ``world'' a violation of the object-oriented model you
propose? 



--

Regards, Kers.              | ``Remember Thor Five!'' (Earthman, Come Home)
From: srm@matrix.com (Steve Morris)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: DFDs come naturally
Summary: DFDs come naturally during analysis
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:31:21 GMT
Organization: Matrix Corporation


I have some background in OO techniques. However, every time I start
to analyze a system via diagrams, I naturally (i.e. not-consciously)
start to draw a data-flow diagram.

I don't necessarily say to myself... "Today, I'm going to use
structured analysis". It just comes out that way.

Has anyone else experienced this?

To those of you who use OOA; does your OOA method come naturally
or do you consciously apply it?


-- 
Steve Morris  ||  MATRIX Corp.  ||  919-231-8000 (8001 FAX) ||  srm@matrix.com
From: d3g325@lovie.pnl.gov (DT McGowan)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Future Issues of Object Orientation
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:26:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracle.1992Aug31.232659.9915
Reply-To: d3g325@lovie.pnl.gov
Organization: Sun Microsystems

ISSUE:     Industrial acceptance of object-oriented technologies.  The private
           sector will need to be more aggressive in the next 5-8 years to take the
           risks associated with object oriented development.

SOLUTION:  Joint development of multiple use systems with private industry and
           large Federal gov't systems. 
           
           This will get more of the private sector on board because risks 
           will be diluted for industry concerned about higher up front costs 
           associated with a lifecycle approach.

AFFECTS:   There will be a consolidation of the multitude of methodologies 
           currently awash in the OO field.  Consistency with terminology such as
           "classes", "methods", "services", etc. will lead to a rapid proliferation
           of truly reusable software.  Life will be good, no matter what Bill and
           Hillary do to our taxes!

    _/_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/_/  Dan McGowan  
   _/  _/  _/  _/      _/         d3g325@lovie.pnl.gov
  _/  _/  _/  _/_/_/  _/   _/_/   Research Scientist   
 _/      _/          _/    _/     Pacific Northwest Laboratories
_/      _/          _/_/_/_/      P.O. Box 999 Richland WA 99352
                                  (509) 375-6762 (FAX) x-3641
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: matthewp@ruby.aruba.UUCP (Matthew Pope)
Subject: Re: Request for Dr. Booch's e-mail address
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:57:56 GMT
Organization: Project Zed

In article <1992Aug13.111220.42@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu>, zxnoueih@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (...VALENCIA...) writes:
|> I am looking for Dr. Booch's e-mail address.
|> I know that he works at RATIONALE.
|> I guess that even RATIONALE's phone number would be OK.
|> 
|> Thanks!
|> 
|> Ziad.
|> 
|> e-mail: zxnoueih@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
|> 

In his Guest Editorial in July/Aug Journal of Object-oriented Programming he specified his e-mail address:  egb@rational.com

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Pope                 |  Internet Style: aruba!matthewp@uu2.psi.com
Project Zed                  |  UUCP   : ...!uunet!uu2.psi.com!aruba!matthewp
AEAU - Against Extraneous Acronym Usage            "Make Love Not War"  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: lex@cs.vu.nl (Hagel AP)
Subject: objects and testing
Originator: lex@galjoen.cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:34:02 GMT

We, two students of computer science at the Vrije Universiteit,
are doing research on testing of software and in particular testing of
software which is object-oriented. The purpose of our research is to gain 
information on the differences between testing of software that has been
developed in a traditional way and software that has been developed in
an object-oriented way. Studying these differences will help us to
develop a framework for object-oriented software testing. These testing
methods include traditional testing methods adapted for use in an
object-oriented environment and in particular object-oriented testing
methods.  

We would be very much obliged to receive information on testing and/or
articles on these subjects.

Vrije Universiteit                            E-Mail: lex@cs.vu.nl
Faculteit Wiskunde en Informatica             Fax   : +31-20-6427705
p/o  Alexander P. Hagel
De Boelelaan 1081a
1081 HV  Amsterdam

Marcel de Groote                              E-Mail: mdgroot@cs.vu.nl
Lepelblad 35
1452 VN  Ilpendam
Netherlands
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: O.M(...) vs M(...), and is the Real World O-O?
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:41:21 GMT
	<KERS.92Aug26181137@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <#6jn_y+.objsys@netcom.com>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: objsys@netcom.com's message of 1 Sep 92 22:51:39 GMT

In article <#6jn_y+.objsys@netcom.com> objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
   >That's odd, because a few messages back, you claimed that they *did*
   >have multi-methods. At least, that's how *I* read what you said; if you
   >were actually discussing your company's own language, there was no way I
   >could tell, and you certainly didn't disabuse me of the notion.

   Nope, you were confused.  You were claiming that O.M(...) meant single
   argument dispatch, which was wrong, and which is why you had trouble
   understanding my postings.  All of what I said was quite clear with a good
   understanding of the issues involved and their context.

Did you ever think that what you are trying to explain wasn't clear?
I drew the same conclusions as kers when I read your messages.  To be
honest I _still_ don't understand your "multi-methods".  Your
arguments seem to be a confusing mixture of Coplien (which to _me_
doesn't back up any of your claims) and your work on a language which
non of us can see.


   Maybe you should consider this issue further before posting any more
   specifically on this subject.  It appears to me you're not even close
   and I'll often assume someone is when they discuss a subject.

At the risk of appearing as arrogant as the above: ditto

bevan
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: Bob Hathaway <objsys@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: O.M(...) vs M(...), and is the Real World O-O?
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:50:22 GMT
Organization: Object Systems

In article <BEVAN.92Aug26090351@beluga.cs.man.ac.uk> bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
>In article <t5anrkq.objsys@netcom.com> objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
>   Coplien uses the same terminology, that using the dynamic types of
>   all arguments, with M ... or O.M ...  notation, is called
>   multi-methods.  Please don't get this wrong again, its getting
>   ridiculous.  You can say: "We in CLOS don't like others using the
>   O.M ... notation to use the term "multi-methods" for their
>   multiple-polymorphism even though this is becoming a standard
>   practice." But I think a single term is preferred to two.
>
>So lets take the CLOS one.  After all, as far as I'm aware it predates
>both Coplien's and you useage of the term.

Then we'd be left with the more verbose but precise: "multiply-polymorphic
methods" terminology.  People might still get confused over whether "methods"
referred to CLOS, classical OO or some other kind of method.

Anyway, I lookup up multi-methods and found the following quote by David Moon:
"CLOS chose generic functions rather than messages in order to minimize the
number of new mechanisms added to COMMON LISP."  He goes on to say there is
no difference between the two approaches and that the CLOS designers simply
didn't want to divide programs into two parts, an "OO" part and a "function-
oriented" part.  CLOS stores methods specialized to a class with that class
anyway.

bob
objsys@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: yoav@seas.gwu.edu (Yoav Intrator)
Subject: OOD CASE tools in the real world.
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:19:34 GMT

Hi all,

I am interested in finding out about existing OOD CASE tools
and mainly experiences (No advertisement, relatives or 
friends). Please post your experience or send me an email.
I promise to compile your replies and post them here.

yoav@seas.gwu.edu
From: objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: O.M(...) vs M(...), and is the Real World O-O?
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:37:54 GMT
Organization: Object Systems

In article <KERS.92Sep2090951@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes:
>It so happens that I've recently continued reading ``Women, Fire, and Dangerous
>Things'' (details available on request), which contains a detailed criticism of
>the view Bob esposes and mentions in this paragraph. I am in no position (yet)
>to effectively recreate the arguments, or to say how sound they are, but they
>bear similarities to the views that I have proposed in previous messages, viz,
>that ``objects'' are a construction of the human mind.

I've read the book too.  It is discussing what I call mental worlds and not
real worlds so your argument is not applicable.  Further discussion on the
distinction (and my terminology, if you'll be so kind) will be Ok but please
don't belabor the obvious.

>   Including physical laws calls for a simulation with some kind of physical-
>   world model.  Such a model can be elegantly designed with an object-oriented
>   model and I have presented at least one trivial way.  This means the
>   object-oriented constructs are simply used to simulate and model the
>   real-world.  For example, the "world" will enforce an equal and opposite
>   reaction whenever an object undergoes some force in the world model.
>
>Isn't this use of a ``world'' a violation of the object-oriented model you
>propose? 

Absolutely not.  It is a perfect use of object-oriented technology as I've
already given you many examples and explanations of.  Please stop trying to
discuss these subjects, they are an interest of mine and I'm beginning to think
that you discuss these subjects with no background or tenability and you
should leave these specific subjects to people who do.  I'm not meaning to
be overbearing, but we've covered all of this already.

bob
objsys@netcom.com
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.clos
From: chambers@klamath.cs.washington.edu (Craig Chambers)
Subject: Re: Beginner's Question - CLOS
Reply-To: chambers@cs.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 22:47:09 GMT

In article <d#cnd+n.thinman@netcom.com>, thinman@netcom.com (Technically Sweet) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> Here's how SELF handles this problem:  all classes are just
|> objects.  An object delegates messages it doesn't know about
|> to parents following a (too) complicated priority system.
|> SELF has this snapshot problem in spades.
|> 
|> The technique is simple: there are really two kinds of
|> object.  One is a prototype, which only serves as a
|> blueprint.  The other is a real live data object.
|> Data objects are made by 'cloning' prototypes.
|> Each prototype has a reference count of the number of
|> data objects which use it as a blueprint.  When an
|> object is modified, it's prototype is itself modified
|> if it has a refcount of 1. If more than one, a new copy 
|> is made of the prototype and that is then modified.

This isn't how Self works.  There is only one kind of object: an
object.  When modifying an object, just that object is modified.  You
may be confusing this language-level object model with some
implementation techniques which transparently introduce sharing behind
the scenes, but these optimizations are invisible to the Self
programmer.  Self programmers follow conventions when organizing
object hierarchies and graphs so that this simple model of editing
objects tends to "do the right thing" to update the program.  A recent
issue of Lisp and Symbolic Computation (July '91?) has a collection of
papers on Self, including one called "Organizing Programs without
Classes" that describes these conventions.

-- Craig Chambers
From: bcp@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Benjamin Pierce)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: References sought on binary methods
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:22:05 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: LFCS, Edinburgh


One of the well-known problems of the "classical object-oriented
paradigm" is its inability to deal with operations that require
simultaneous access to the internal state of more than one object at a
time.  Implementing a UNION operation on sets without publically
exposing the underlying data structure used the represent them is a
typical example.

I would be grateful for pointers to papers (or languages) where this
issue is addressed.

        Benjamin Pierce
        bcp@dcs.ed.ac.uk
        
        
Xref: sparky comp.object:3348 comp.lang.eiffel:1100 comp.lang.smalltalk:1733
From: markley@network.ucsd.edu (Mike Markley)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Future Issues of Object Orientation
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:55:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego
NNTP-Posting-Host: network.ucsd.edu

In article <923@ast.dsd.northrop.com> dvorak@ast.dsd.northrop.com (dvorak joseph l.) writes:
>
> I would like to start a discussion about what people believe
> will be the critical issues in object technology in the next
> 5 - 8 years. What solutions to these issues do you see and
> how will the solutions affect the object model?
>

From where I sit it appears that the biggest issues will be in
the areas of speed and size of executables. I have heard that
some experimental OOP languages are approaching the speed of
compiled C (if anyone has info on these please let me know how
to obtain more info.) but I have not seen a commercial package
that even comes close to being very efficient at run time. The
other problem, that of size, may be addressable when the speed
increases.

Mike Markley
ENFIN Software Corp.

-- 
Mike Markley
markley@network.ucsd.edu
The opinions here are mine and do not always agree with my 
employers.  Reader discretion is advised.
From: mod@cs.man.ac.uk (Michael O'Docherty (CAG ra))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: Where can I get Sather? (Well, sort of)
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:32:03 GMT

<Poems thus far deleted for brevity only, not censorship!>

I just want to see
if system validity
is handled by ISE-3.
Won't someone tell me?

I know this doesn't scan.
I've done the best that I can.
If you can do better,
drop us all a letter :)


Mike.

Internet: mod@cs.man.ac.uk, wet string: (+44) 061 223 1301 ext. 2343

ps.
If you see this Trevor,
feel free to be clever,
but my main endeavour
is to use this ode as an ISE lever!
From: bertrand@feiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: system-level validity
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:09:56 GMT
Organization: S.O.L. Paris, France


The first release of ISE Eiffel 3 does not support system-level
validity checking. We felt that adding system-level checking,
which addresses a real problem but one that does not arise often
in practice, was not worth delaying the release by two months
(the current estimate of the time needed to implement system-level
validity).

We felt that the version as it is is such an advance for developers
of practical software systems that we should release it without
waiting for system-level validity to be ready. This was not an
easy decision to make, for all the reasons listed in the referenced
articles. Feel free to flame if you disagree.

ISE recognizes the importance of system-level validity, which is at the
top of the list facilities to be added in the immediately following release.

-- 
-- Bertrand Meyer
Interactive Software Engineering Inc., Santa Barbara
bertrand@eiffel.com
(temporarily at SOL, Paris, bertrand@eiffel.fr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel
From: olea@hal.nta.no (Ole J. Anfindsen FDA)
Subject: Eiffel-based ODBMS?
Keywords: Eiffel ODBMS percistence
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 06:45:36 GMT

Is anyone aware of one or more Eiffel-based ODBMSs (or percistent Eiffel, if 
you will)?

-- 
Ole J. Anfindsen 
Norwegian Telecom Research
E-mail:  ole.anfindsen@nta.no

Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel