RE: OO Terminology Hang-up
- From: "Ken Perry" <whistler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:11:26 -0500
Nod for example one thing many companies do to get a product out is create a
class call something like mQuickList. Then they use all the stl libraries
and inherit the functionality from them. We all know, while the stl is
better now, it's still not the fastest way to do things for certain
problems. Also it is bloated and you get all kinds of stuff you don't need.
Same goes for the container classes in MSVC++. But the company is trying to
get a product out so they use them. Now version 2.0 comes along and hacker
Jane has time to go in and write 5 quick list methods and remove the
dependency on the List that they are really using along with a better memory
manager and blam the product just improved because there were no changes
needed in the main code.
Ken
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Homme, James
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 6:55 AM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: OO Terminology Hang-up
Hi Ken,
Thanks. I thought that I was understanding what was going on, and that it
was a term thing. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
Here's where I am right now in my learning. I just got to the end of the
place in the book where they have a class that has an instance variable. The
instance variable is private. The class has a setter method, a getter
method, a display method, and a constructor that sets the value of the
instance variable when you create an object. The display method runs the
setter method to set the instance variable.
Then we made a main program that creates an object and shows that the
constructor has set the instance variable. The main program sets the
instance variable by calling the setter method , and displays it by calling
the display method. Then it uses the getter method to change it, and
displays it again.
I think I'm starting to understand a little about how good this kind of
programming is. Someone can make a class version 1.0. You can call the
setter. They can then come out with a class version 2.0. You can use the
same call. If they totally remade the setter method, you don't care, because
your program still works.
Jim
Jim Homme,
Usability Services,
Phone: 412-544-1810. Skype: jim.homme
Internal recipients, Read my accessibility blog
<http://mysites.highmark.com/personal/lidikki/Blog/default.aspx> . Discuss
accessibility here
<http://collaborate.highmark.com/COP/technical/accessibility/default.aspx> .
Accessibility Wiki: Breaking news and accessibility advice
<http://collaborate.highmark.com/COP/technical/accessibility/Accessibility%2
0Wiki/Forms/AllPages.aspx>
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Perry
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:20 PM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: OO Terminology Hangup
I think your question is just a grammar hang up you can say it in many ways
from call a method on a class, call a method in a class , call a method of a
class they all pretty much say the same thing. Just remember your class
(object) is a thing so for example it's a table. It's a special kind of
table though where if you grab the leg it tells you how long it is. That or
if you say top it tells you the size of the top. So the table leg is on the
table thus your using a method on the table to get its size. Shrug I am just
rambling because like I said it really don't matter if it's a chicken or an
egg.
Ken
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Homme, James
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:40 PM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: OO Terminology Hangup
Hi,
I'm probably asking this because of grammar reasons, but I don't know enough
to know that, so here goes.
I'm hung up by the phrase in my Java book that says something like "I'm
going to call a method on a class." I want to keep substituting the word
"of" for the word "on" in my mind to help me understand what the book is
telling me. That's because I'm thinking that the word "of" in this context
means "belonging to." Am I missing something because I'm thinking this way?
Thanks.
Jim
Jim Homme,
Usability Services,
Phone: 412-544-1810. Skype: jim.homme
Internal recipients, Read my accessibility blog
<http://mysites.highmark.com/personal/lidikki/Blog/default.aspx> . Discuss
accessibility here
<http://collaborate.highmark.com/COP/technical/accessibility/default.aspx> .
Accessibility Wiki: Breaking news and accessibility advice
<http://collaborate.highmark.com/COP/technical/accessibility/Accessibility%2
0Wiki/Forms/AllPages.aspx>
_____
This e-mail and any attachments to it are confidential and are intended
solely for use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately
and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not
keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this e-mail without the author's
prior permission. The views expressed in this e-mail message do not
necessarily represent the views of Highmark Inc., its subsidiaries, or
affiliates.
Other related posts:
