Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!nucsrl!gore
From: gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: A new NeXT archive
Message-ID: <12670018@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Mar 89 21:04:45 GMT
References: <4565@umd5.umd.edu>
Organization: Northwestern U, Evanston IL, USA
Lines: 47

In article <12670017@eecs.nwu.edu> gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) writes:
>Sigh...  Why did they have to go and start calling classes "objects"???

Jacob (and others),

>/ comp.sys.next / feldman@umd5.umd.edu (Mark Feldman) / Mar  1, 1989 /
>Instead of picking on my incorrect use of the word ``object,'' ...

(That's what I get for using pronouns out of context.)  I wasn't picking on
you, Mark.  I was complaining to NeXT.  You probably inherited the term
from the Interface Builder, which misuses it too.

>Between Objective-C, Display PostScript, and the rest of the NeXTStep
>environment, there are hundreds of new terms and new ways of overloading old
>terms.  Using just the right word and having it understood by the large
>number of readers on comp.sys.next, many of whom have never done
>object-oriented programming or used a NeXT, is not always easy.

That's why it's so sad to see NeXT propagate inconsistent terminology.
Objective-C uses "class", because Smalltalk uses "class", and Objective-C
imitates Smalltalk.  C++ uses "class".  (Heck, didn't even Simula-67 call it
"class"?)

NeXT had to go and call it "object".

(Now, there are O-O languages that are "classless", that is, where an
object has the properties of both a Smalltalk class and a Smalltalk
instance, but Objective-C isn't one of them.  The libraries on NeXT are
class libraries, not object libraries.)

>I realize that an object is an instance of a class, however I think that
>using the word ``class'', without additional qualification, is more
>confusing to those that have not had as much exposure to object oriented
>programming.

Presicely why we should use consistent terminology.

>``object class'' provides enough context for the uninitiated.

Yeah... that's the ticket :-)

>I will endeavor to be more correct in the future.

Me too.

Jacob Gore				Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu
Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept.		{oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore