budd@mist.cs.orst.edu (Tim Budd) (05/11/91)
Here is something more interesting and light-hearted to discusss. Enough of these long silly technical discussions. Many authors (not necessarily computer science authors) have noted that in America people are largely characterized by their profession. That is, when strangers are introduced here, the second question asked (after finding out their respective names), is usually ``Well, what do you do?''. In many cultures, even some western cultures, such a personal question might be seen as odd, if not offensive, but in America it is the norm. Now it strikes me that this is a very object-oriented way of viewing the world; namely that individuals are characterized more by their behavior than their identity. It is interesting to speculate to what degree programming languages reflect the culture in which they are developed. Could object-oriented programming have developed in, for example, China? Or did it require Linneaus and several centuries of organization-by-hierarchy? (I once had a student write a paper for me describing the traditional chinese way of organizing knowledge, but neither he nor I could see how to make a programming language that reflected this in the way that OOP reflects the Linneaus-Aristotelean approach). To what degree is the wide aceptance of OOP based on the fact that we have already, our our everyday lives, bought into the belief that objects are characterized by their behavior? (Alternatively could OOP have been developed if the concept of class was not so firmly rooted in our culture? Since I know of no culture that doesn't have classes in one form or another this is more difficult to speculate about).
kasper@iesd.auc.dk (Kasper Osterbye) (05/13/91)
Tim Budd brings up the question as to whether OO is somthing inherrent to the western culture? Interesting. To me the only assumptions behind the object oriented approach is that we find it natural to understand the world as objects and actions. We do in most languages have nouns and verbs, though it has been discussed whether some north american indian languages had nouns (a house is a rather long during event, but an event never the less). As to whether it is common to organize knowledge in hierarchies, I dont know, but the let's agree that object-based (Wegner's definition) is a pretty common way of viewing the world. --Kasper -- Kasper Osterbye Internet: kasper@iesd.auc.dk Institute for electronic systems Aalborg University Fredrik Bajers vej 7, 9220 Aalborg DENMARK. (W) +45 98 15 85 22 (H) +45 98 37 30 65
lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) (05/14/91)
Well, this brings up my own observation about OO programming, and Smalltalk in particular. I've found that women seem prefer the Smalltalk paradigm over the procedural paradigm, when faced with learning programming. They've generally been exposed to the procedural style first, and didn't enjoy working with it. Once they got into Smalltalk, they enjoyed programming for the first time. My theory is that while men are generally fascinated by machinery and the fiddling thereof, women are generally fascinated by personal interaction and find machinery boring. The procedural paradigm is mechanist in the extreme, whereas a Smalltalk program run can be viewed as a conversation between fully designed members of a society. When programming is viewed in psychological terms, women generally become much more interested. Viewed in this light, Smalltalk can be viewed as a method of breaking a machine up from one giant machine to many little machines. Other software paradigms such as genetic algorithms and neural networks are farther out along this path: the individual elements are less pre-defined, and have more able to change themselves to fit their environment. (Note the words "fully designed" above.) Lance Norskog
diamond@jit533.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) (05/14/91)
In article <3926@motcsd.csd.mot.com> lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) writes: >I've found that women seem prefer the Smalltalk paradigm over the >procedural paradigm, when faced with learning programming. They've >generally been exposed to the procedural style first, and didn't enjoy >working with it. Once they got into Smalltalk, they enjoyed programming >for the first time. >My theory is that while men are generally fascinated by machinery >and the fiddling thereof, women are generally fascinated by personal >interaction and find machinery boring. If this is the reason, then men should enjoy knitting and reading cookbooks(*), while women should be bored by them. (* Of course some do, and I certainly believe that there should be no legal or social or other pressure in either direction. Only, statistical observations contradict the proposed reasoning.) -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it. Permission is granted to feel this signature, but not to look at it.
tmh@iesd.auc.dk (Torben Hagensen) (05/14/91)
>>>>> On 14 May 91 01:32:31 GMT, lance@motcsd.csd.mot.com (lance.norskog) said:
Lance> I've found that women seem prefer the Smalltalk paradigm over the
Lance> procedural paradigm, when faced with learning programming. They've
Lance> generally been exposed to the procedural style first, and didn't enjoy
Lance> working with it. Once they got into Smalltalk, they enjoyed programming
Lance> for the first time.
This has in my opinion nothing to do with the programming paradigm.
The Smalltalk environment is simply nicer to use than f.x. an editor
and a C++ compiler.
Lance> My theory is that while men are generally fascinated by machinery
Lance> and the fiddling thereof, women are generally fascinated by personal
Lance> interaction and find machinery boring. The procedural paradigm
Lance> is mechanist in the extreme, whereas a Smalltalk program run
Lance> can be viewed as a conversation between fully designed members of
Lance> a society. When programming is viewed in psychological terms,
Lance> women generally become much more interested.
Some men (and women) have more patience with intolerable environments
than others, because they are fascinated by the machinery. Again, this
has nothing to do with procedural or functional vs. object oriented
paradigms. The difference is that men are brought up to be fascinated
by maschinery.
------------------
My point is that there is no difference in men and womens tendency to
describe the world as objects and operations.
It could be interesting to examine whether women uses more nouns in
their natural language than men, since that would be the ultimate
consequence of your theory.
------------------
Lance> Lance Norskog
-Torben (alias tmh@iesd.auc.dk)cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) (05/20/91)
In article <KASPER.91May13085543@blue.iesd.auc.dk> kasper@iesd.auc.dk (Kasper Osterbye) writes: >Tim Budd brings up the question as to whether OO is somthing inherrent >to the western culture? Interesting. To me the only assumptions behind >the object oriented approach is that we find it natural to understand the >world as objects and actions. Aristotle and Plato's viewpoint predominated before Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin etc brought on the nature-centric, object-oriented, 'scientific' viewpoint. Telescopes, microscopes and butterfly nets first; logic and mathematics later. In other words, orient on the objects instead of insisting on a programmer-centric view of the universe. To the Platonists, the world of the senses was a place of illusion. Truth could only be had by applying reason, logic, and mathematics. Just as so many Neo-Platonists still hope to do for software. -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482