Talk:Object (computer science)

yeah but

wrt "an object is an entity with well-defined behavior." that is not wrong but it's not useful. my car is an entity with a well defined behavior. but it's not a software object. there's something about object, in the context of software, that is different than my car. I'm pretty sure i fixed this a few months ago but it has morphed into generic gobbledygook.

a software object is a cohesive grouping of data and functionality. ... it should also represent an entry with well defined behavior.

not that it's functionality, not code that the data is paired with. sure there's code but that's not precise. the data part also has associated code. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

semantic web

what is semantic web? seems unrelated to OOP. you say this article is not just about OOP? seems so, but object is a very general term, highly overloaded. it has multiple meanings in the context of computer science. i didn't think this article should ever expand to include different meanings for the word. imo there should be a separate article for each type of thing.

thinking boldly. i say delete this page. info can be moved to other articles. oop already had a definition for object. and sematic web has an article so move info there. Stevebroshar (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Terrible Article

This is all over the place, no clean and clear definition of object. No wonder people are confused. Ian.joyner (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ian.joyner yes it's bad. it was better a while ago but people reworked it to its current form. one problem is that object is highly overloaded and this article tries to cover too many of the overloads. a programming object is different from a database object is different from whatever the semantic web is. i think should split up into multiple articles Stevebroshar (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Content archived

I see that this talk page content was archived not too long ago. I don't think that was a good choice. The posts were on the older side, but many of them still relevant. In general, I think folks are far too quick to archive talk info. Stevebroshar (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Definition is not wrong

The article currently starts with "an object is an entity with well-defined behavior" which based on my knowledge of the subject is not wrong, but is not useful. Before the rule hounds complain about OR, I did check the reference material: Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, page 38. Sure enough that page includes: "In the previous chapter, we informally defined an object as a tangible entity that exhibits some well-defined behavior." (Notice the "previous chapter". This definition was introduced on page 20. But, that's not the most important thing.) The important part is "we informally defined". The authors are still teasing the reading about the definition of object. They call it informal here since they give a more accurate definition later! On page 78 they finally get to it: "An object is an entity that has state, behavior, and identity." That is consistent with what I know to be an object in software development; not just behavior, but also state and identity.

<rant> I hate it when folks use hard-to-verify sources. It was hard to obtain that book. Since it was hard to find, I assumed the cite was accurate. And others assume it is correct. Google and AI bots scrape the definition from WP and then tell the world that an object is "an object is an entity with well-defined behavior" even though that's a lame definition. </rant> Stevebroshar (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)