Interesting take on Paradigms (OO vs Procedural)

On Mar 29, 1:51 pm, "Rick Smith" <ricksm...@mfi.net> wrote:
> "Richard" <rip...@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:c3525524-b3c3-451e-b747-69eea559fc18@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> The book "Simulation Using GPSS", Thomas J. Schriber,
> 1974, covers the use of General Purpose Simulation System
> to accomplish discrete event simulation. I find no mention of
> "class", "object", or "method" in this book; thus, apparently,
> these terms are not in the jargon of GPSS users. The author
> uses procedural languages as a model for explaining the use
> of GPSS.

Turning to my* copy of "Programming Languages. NATO Advanced Study
Institute, edited by F Genuys 1968" it has an article "Discrete Event
Simulation Languages" by Ole-Johan Dahl. This apparently was given as
a series of lectures around 1966. It discusses simulation in general
and how some computer simulation languages map onto the process.

In part 3, Basic Concepts:

"""... We think about a system as in terms of the objects that it
contains. The statis of the system is defined by the status of each
object and by the relations that hold between objects.

3.1.1 Classes of Objects

... This conflict is resolved by the technique of classifying objects.
... status descriptors called attributes. An attribute is a
variable, ...

The class concept vastly simplifies the description of a system. A
qualitative declaration of a class of objects serves as an en bloc
description of every member of that class.
"""

After a few pages of these concepts there is a section that indicates
the terminology of several programs and how the concepts relate to the
terminology used by the programs. The programs are GPSS, SOL,
SIMSCRIPT, CSL and SIMULA. For example in GPSS an 'attribute' is
called a 'parameter', an 'object' is called a 'transaction', GPSS
doesn't implement anything related to 'class'.

Later it discusses 'reference counting' and 'garbage collecting'

It seems that the point is clearly made that discrete simulation as a
discipline used the terms we see in modern OO languages whereas the
computer simulation languages of the time (mid 60s), including SIMULA
of 1966 (and GPSS), were implemented by computer programmers who used
the terms that they were used to.


* I say 'my copy' in spite of the "ICL Head Office Library" stamp on
the front page and 'date due' slip affixed to the last. If this wasn't
blank it would have some date in 1970 stamped on it.

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:c1715df2-76a5-4502-bdd7-23e4ae8f7551@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 29, 1:51 pm, "Rick Smith" <ricksm...@mfi.net> wrote:
[snip] 
>
> Turning to my* copy of "Programming Languages. NATO Advanced Study
> Institute, edited by F Genuys 1968" it has an article "Discrete Event
> Simulation Languages" by Ole-Johan Dahl. This apparently was given as
> a series of lectures around 1966. It discusses simulation in general
> and how some computer simulation languages map onto the process.
[snip]
> After a few pages of these concepts there is a section that indicates
> the terminology of several programs and how the concepts relate to the
> terminology used by the programs. The programs are GPSS, SOL,
> SIMSCRIPT, CSL and SIMULA. For example in GPSS an 'attribute' is
> called a 'parameter', an 'object' is called a 'transaction', GPSS
> doesn't implement anything related to 'class'.

Thanks for the information. I was hoping to find in my
GPSS book a discussion of the OO terms in the context
of simulation; but I guess that ain't going to happen.

On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:15:20 +0000, docdwarf wrote:
> 
> 
>
> Ditto. No more than one bit might separate a program that works correctly
> and one that fails catastrophically. This is a relevant analogy, because
> DNA is code.
>

Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no
discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or
reason.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6ee2259e-8acb-4822-b0fb-922006515356@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Mar, 21:16, "Pete Dashwood"
> 
>
> Technically, there is very little difference between an earthworm, a
> frog and a human (except for what theBible has to say about morphology
> and anatomy). Camels and horses are virtually identical.

However, "virtually" is NOT identical.

Try not watering a horse for 6 ws and see how long it lasts.

Try riding a horse over sand dunes for ws on end and see how long it
lasts or the distance it covers, compared to a camel.

Try making turkish delight out of camel hooves...

Differences are important, (sometimes even critical...)

And THAT was my point.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:69c88c59-3e42-484a-8321-67452c60d5fd@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote: 
>
> Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no
> discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or
> reason.

I think you need to qualify that to "without rhyme or reason that we can
discern at this time."

While it may be that much of what is there is left over from previous failed
evolutionary attempts (much as some maintenance programmers don't remove
code that has become irrelevant "just in case it is ever needed again"), and
is not required for the organism to function in its present incarnation,
that certainly doesn't mean we can decisively state it is there without
rhyme or reason.

We know that people can function "normally" even when quite large pieces of
their brains are removed, but we don't advocate removing brain parts in the
interest of general efficiency...:-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:13ur5tg3con5ja4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:65553nF2cjsrhU1@mid.individual.net... 
> the 
> a 
> in 
>
> H'm! Structure, in procedural, is accessed through a pointer.
> Object, in object-based, is accessed through a reference.
> Object, in object-oriented, is accessed through a reference;
> but also holds a "vtable" to accommodate inheritance and
> polymorphism.
>
> The essential difference seems to be the extension of the
> structure to add the "vtable" making the object a bigger
> structure.
>
You are looking only at the mechanics of an implementation. The conceptual
use of objects is WAY more important. But you only come to appreciate that
when you start using them for systems in the real world, and not just to
describe some academic argument.

Whether objects implement inheritance through a vtable or not is completely
irrelevant to the use of objects. For you, an object is just a structure in
memory; for me, it is much more than that. I visualise objects as
representing a real world entity and having attributes and behaviours that a
structure alone can never have. Perhaps it comes down to imagination and
vision.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0700, Alistair wrote:

> On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote: 
>
> Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no
> discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or
> reason.

This remains true.. But as I understand it a fair amount of the DNA that
does not produce proteins and thus was classified as junk DNA does in fact
produce RNA, which has an important role in regulating cell functions. For
example, a lot of the mutations that separate humans from their relatives
seem to be for RNA that controls brain functions.

Tim

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:657mp4F2dooroU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
> news:13ur5tg3con5ja4@corp.supernews.com... 
essential 
between 
things 
> You are looking only at the mechanics of an implementation. The conceptual
> use of objects is WAY more important. But you only come to appreciate that
> when you start using them for systems in the real world, and not just to
> describe some academic argument.
>
> Whether objects implement inheritance through a vtable or not is
completely
> irrelevant to the use of objects. For you, an object is just a structure
in
> memory; for me, it is much more than that. I visualise objects as
> representing a real world entity and having attributes and behaviours that
a
> structure alone can never have. Perhaps it comes down to imagination and
> vision.

I used to see objects as real world entities. Now I associate
real world entites with classes, because the methods in the
classes repesent behavior. If one is to "simulate" anything,
it is the behavior that is to be simulated.

To simulate a business, the behavior occurs in employees,
customers, orders, accounts, etc.; but to simulate the
financial systems of a business the behavior is in clerks, and
the employees, customers, orders, accounts, etc., become
just data structures devoid of behavior. This is not much
different than a card game, where the dealer and players
have behavior but the cards don't; even though the cards
are real world entities.

In article <657lo7F2e5vr4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:69c88c59-3e42-484a-8321-67452c60d5fd@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... 
>
>I think you need to qualify that to "without rhyme or reason that we can
>discern at this time."

I agree, Mr Dashwood... now, how often in my postings does one read
*that*?  The 'junk DNA' stuff is something that strikes me as just plain
odd; energy is required to create and maintain it.  A left-over here or
there I can understand - the little toe or the vermiform appendix - but so
much... *stuff* in each and every cell?

It just doesn't make sense to me, now... but I will not say 'it will never
make sense to anyone, ever.'

DD

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon
.co.uk> wrote:

>On 29 Mar, 06:18, tim <T...@internet.com> wrote: 
>
>Well said Tim. Most DNA is in fact what is called 'Junk DNA' with no
>discernable function and with sections repeated without rhyme or
>reason.

Orgel and Crick called it "Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite" in this artic
le:

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/D/G/_/scbcdg.pdf

DNA does not make protein directly. It encodes mRNA, which goes to a ribosom
e, where the
protein is actually made. Most DNA doesn't make only one mRNA, it is like a 
macro that can
make many different RNAs depending on parameters. It often makes short tempo
rary RNA
(stRNA), which in turn makes more stRNA, which eventually makes 'real' mRNA.
 There are
layers of abstraction and overloading much like programming languages. DNA i
sn't a simple
protein template, it's a meta language.

Amoeba dubia have 200 times the DNA of humans. The marbled lungfish and a pl
ant named
Fritillaria assyriaca have 40 times as much. It is hard to believe the exces
s contributes
to the host's survival or complexity. You could regard them as old companies
 burdened with
parasitic unionized employees who cost and contribute little, or as cultures
 with an
unusually complex grammar. Why is Mandarin and Russian so much more complex 
than Spanish?
The message is the same. The answer is historic accident.