Jim H. It would appear that you are over thinking the OO way. Yes, everything is an object. In good old English, an object equals a noun. A noun has attributes / properties. Verbs are actions that can be thought of as methods either with in the noun or from other nouns actting upon the first noun. So, why think of it more than that. Jim C. From: program-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:program-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Homme, James Sent: October 3, 2012 11:49 AM To: program-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [program-l] Thinking About Objects Again Hi Richard, and who ever else wants to chime in, I feel like you were talking to me about objects, because I seem to have a hang up about them. When you said what you did, I thought about Cobol sub programs. This was before Cobol had objects. I think it has them now. Anyway, a sub program was self contained. It had its own data and procedures. Where I work, we used to have sub programs that would perform limited functions, like if the main programs in the system we worked on wanted to use a certain file and go after that data, they wouldn't have the code for that all scattered throughout dozens of programs. They'd put it in a sub program and just use it. That's not exactly what happened. I'm simplifying the example to make a point. I'm pretty sure that we didn't have the notion of sub programs that used sub programs, but I would think that we could have built the system that way. So when I start to think about Python, I'm getting used to the idea that in stead of a function being part of the Python language, it's actually part of a list. And the list can do things to itself, like add members and delete them. That's probably a bad example, because I don't have a Python reference right in front of me. And when you query if something is in this list, behind the scenes, somehow, Python is running the code in the list object and maybe getting some sort of return code, or true/false something that tells it that yes, there is this thing in the list that you are looking for. Another thing that seems to keep me from understanding some of this stuff is that people will write their descriptions in code before they explain it in words, but maybe that's just my learning style. One thing I don't understand at all, so far, and I've read this, is that they say that everything in Python is an object. So I'm really having trouble wrapping my brain around how something can look like a keyword or function call when I code it, and actually be a method, because when I start to read about how to write code for classes, the code looks different, so I feel kind of wierded out. I want to ask myself "Why don't we either code as though everything is made up of objects with dot notation, or simply not use dot notation, or both, so we can keep it all straight?" I'm sure that I'm totally missing something here with my thinking. But it feels better to attempt to talk about it. I hope that made some sort of sense. Thanks. Jim ________________________________ 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.