Jump to content

Talk:Object (computer science)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


yeah but

[edit]

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)[reply]

semantic web

[edit]

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)[reply]

Terrible Article

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Content archived

[edit]

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)[reply]