Talk:Reification (computer science)

message: Hello. There is a reference in the article which is good. I added one "citations missing" tag because I couldn't see the source. I have no knowledge of reification really. You are most welcome from my point of view to remove or change the tag. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: The link to Reification (linguistics) in the section on VDM is fine, and is appropriate to the content on that page. However, the reference in the lead (defining nominalization as an instance of reification), if it belongs anywhere, belongs only on that page, not here. Currently, this simpler, less technical meaning for reification is not described on the linguistics page. --Airsplit (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The reference to linguistics in the beginning is inappropriate here. A link could be added to the Reification (linguistics) page and this example be copied to there. Sae1962 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too, so I removed it. (Restorers should argue here instead of just reverting). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to linguistics 

message: This unparagraphed article is something extraordinarily difficult to read (for me).
Look at snippets as:
"When objects in Smalltalk are viewed as pointers to structs carrying pointers to functions the analogy is clear. There has been renewed interest in the explicit use of C for the implementation of Smalltalk primitives. C is also the language used to implement 3rd-generation Smalltalk in the language Io."
Even reading what's before, understanding what "analogy" the author is talking about is for me impossible. And anyway, I see little coherence in what is written.
:I agree it's very hard to read.  It's Interesting, but it could have less opinion and be rewritten. LegendLength (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of cohesion (and of clear meaning) 

message: Why isn’t Forth mentioned? It’s the apotheosis of reification, giving the programmer access to every internal structure, including its return stack, dictionary and more. Roman V. Odaisky (talk) 12:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forth 

message: I can follow the definition given, that "Reification is the act of making an abstract concept or low-level implementation detail of a programming language accessible to the programmer", however, I fail to see how the examples that follow explain this to anyone but an expert, already familiar with the term.
- How does C make memory addresses accessible to the programmer?  Is it some sort of one-to-one address space mapping?  If so, how is this bounded or constrained into C syntax?
- How does Scheme make continuations accessible to the programmer?  Same kinds of questions, but a poorer example, because continuations are less universal than memory.
- I can't even grasp what "types that are completely available at run time" despite the "clarification".  Are you talking about some sort of "reflection framework"?
Agree with other poster about lack of cohesion.  I can't get what I'm looking for out of this article.  In particular, what does reification do, as a process, that distinguishes it from other processes like refactoring?  From what I've gathered, perhaps it exposes functionality in a useful way?
In addition, the article launches into discussions of impacts on OOP without giving the reader a strong sense of why OOP is more (or less) impacted than other methodologies (declarative, structured, functional, aspect-oriented, etc.)
99.170.78.44 (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muddled 

message: There isn't much added value that this article is bringing to the general concept of reification. It is perhaps a good idea to consolidate the several 'reification' articles into one. However in the meantime, I am going to edit the 'reification in computer science' article by linking it to Reflection (computer science). 
Regarding the use of reification in the sense of refinement - this originates from Vienna Development Method, in particular, its data reification. According to Formal Method Europe FAQ: Data reification is the VDM terminology for what most other people would call data refinement - that is, the taking of a step towards an implementation by replacing a data representation without a counterpart in the intended implementation language (such as sets) by one that does have a counterpart (such as maps with fixed domains, which can be implemented by arrays), or at least one which is closer to having a counterpart, such as sequences. The word "reification" is preferred over "refinement" because the process has more to do with making an idea concrete than with making it more refined.
Arguably, the role of Wikipedia is to clarify this confusion, not to perpetuate it by including a confusing phrase right into the article.
: I agree with you that the articles should be merged into one 'Reification (computer science)' article. Sae1962 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that the contents of this article are part of Reification (computer science). Sae1962 (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reification, reflective programming, and merging it 

message: Translation of Reification to portuguese: Substantivar, Concretizar. (This is a sugestion) Carnide (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reification (translation of) 

message: I think the first image is wrong. The correct values on the top right membership R1 should be
 a P1
 b P1 (not P2)
 c P2 (not P1)
as the person P1 has two memberships. Sae1962 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: First image seems to be wrong