Linked by Takuya Murata on Tue 18th May 2004 06:26 UTC
My physics teacher likes to say that physics like to make problems they face look like ones that they know how to solve. A simple harmonic oscillation was one he frequently used in class, as is presumably the case in physics in general.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The claim that OOP modeling the real world is rubbish; diamond inheritance, subclassing, the principle of subtyping, danger in down casting, etc, etc, cannot be found in everyday lives
Many languages do not have diamond inheritance (luckily mix-ins fit for 99% of the use cases). Subclassing and subtyping are really obvious and present in real world.
And there are many people (smalltalkers, rubyist, pythonistas and so on ) that don't have any problem with down casting at all.
Sure, you can mess up stuff so that you're thinking for the machine instead of thinking in the domani.
That is the reason that frameworks like naked objects are so successfull, they bring OO backe where it should stay: simulating real world.
The claim that OOP modeling the real world is rubbish; diamond inheritance, subclassing, the principle of subtyping, danger in down casting, etc, etc, cannot be found in everyday lives
Many languages do not have diamond inheritance (luckily mix-ins fit for 99% of the use cases). Subclassing and subtyping are really obvious and present in real world.
And there are many people (smalltalkers, rubyist, pythonistas and so on ) that don't have any problem with down casting at all.
Sure, you can mess up stuff so that you're thinking for the machine instead of thinking in the domani.
That is the reason that frameworks like naked objects are so successfull, they bring OO backe where it should stay: simulating real world.