Encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism

[rusi]

On Jul 19, 1:56 pm, Lipska the Kat <lip... at lipskathekat.com> wrote:
> Academic twiddling with the distorted meaning of words spun by
> vested interests is all very interesting I'm sure but doesn't really
> advance the discussion does it?

Well lets back up the discussion a bit. You coming from a Java
background have one view of what OO means. Others coming from a python
background have a different view. In particular you said:

> Python looks like an interesting language and I will certainly spend
> time getting to know it but at the moment it seems to me that calling it
> an Object Oriented language is just plain misleading.


> On 19/07/12 07:09, rusi wrote:
> > In layman-speak and object is well, a thing.
>
> But we are not talking in 'layman-speak' we are discussing concepts that
> are familiar to us in the 'language of the domain' at least I though we
> were.


> > And one of the most pervasive (and stupidist) metaphors is the parent-
> > child relation of classes.
> > Just for the record, in the normal world 'creatures/beings' reproduce
> > and therefore inherit.
>
> But we are not talking about the 'real world' are we, we are talking
> about representing complex interacting human concepts in a way that can
> be understood by humans and translated into a form that can be executed
> on a binary machine

So when multiple technical understandings are in conflict it seems
reasonable to find a frame in which the different viewpoints could
resolve.  The ultimate such frame is the completely de-jargonized
frame ie laymanspeak.  [How far one can/should go toward that ultimate
is another quesion]