Re: OOP Question
ck,
Very briefly, on simplicity vs. rightness: I believe that "Occam's razor" -
the simplest explanation or approach *that works* is nearly always best - is
a good rule of thumb.
I'm probably taking this slightly out of context, but I recall reading in an
enormous book on OOP that it's an indicator of good style, language design,
program design, etc. when generally speaking your method calls have at most
one argument. Take that for what it's worth.
I can't imagine a *valid* argument against simplicity, per se. I can imagine
arguments against oversimplifying; but I think making things unnecessarily
complicated is at least as bad, if not worse.
All of the foregoing are statements of general principles, rules of thumb,
and the like.
It's apparent that some other folks who have contributed to this discussion
have given it all deeper thought than I have.
There is no such thing as an "accurate OOP model," except in a relative
sense. You are striving for an optimum or best model, which is the thing to
do. Sounds like you're on the right track. No doubt your model will evolve
as you work on the project, but it helps to be headed in the right direction
at the outset, no?
On the idea of space (moer accurately, space-time) storing the locations of
everything -- all *particles* and quanta of energy -- why not? It's possible
that it actually does just that. Greg Bear wrote a novel, Moving Mars, that
explores (among other things) what sorts of feats we could accomplish if we
could access and *directly manipulate* that information. (Greg Bear manages
to easily persuade me to suspend disbelief, so I enjoy his books.)
George Henry
Computers save time the way kudzu prevents soil erosion. -- Al Castanoli
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
