面向对象程序设计的要旨 [英] The Gist of Object Oriented Programming
问题描述
逐步将问题空间分解为越来越简单的组件的方法
这样的组件部分代表更高级别的概念抽象，并且完全独立于b
$ b除了明确定义的界面之外，还有其他的。
这是试图向习惯于
结构化编程范例的程序员解释OOP的要点。我尝试用理想来解释OOP，即使这些理想在实际系统中永远不会完美实现。
有没有人对于如何改进这个解释有任何想法吗？
我们的目标是在不超过一个短段落中为结构化的
程序员提供OOP的好处。
A means for the progressive decomposition a problem space into increasingly simpler component parts
such that these component parts represent higher levels of conceptual abstraction, and are
completely independent of each other except for their well-defined interfaces.
This was an attempt to explain the gist of OOP to programmers accustomed to the
structured programming paradigm. I tried to explain OOP in terms of ideals that can
be striven for, even though these ideals may never be perfectly achieved in real systems.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this explanation?
The goal is to provide the gist of the benefits of OOP to structured
programmers in no more than a single short paragraph.
推荐答案
On Sun，2004年4月18日17:23:16 GMT in comp.lang.c ++，Roger Smythe
< Ro ********* @ hotmail.com>写道，
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:23:16 GMT in comp.lang.c++, "Roger Smythe"
<Ro*********@hotmail.com> wrote,
将问题空间逐步分解为越来越简单的组成部分的方法
这些组成部分代表更高层次的概念抽象，并且完全独立于每个除了明确定义的接口外。
这句话没有动词。
有没有人对如何改进这个解释有任何想法？
A means for the progressive decomposition a problem space into increasingly simpler component parts
such that these component parts represent higher levels of conceptual abstraction, and are
completely independent of each other except for their well-defined interfaces.
This sentence no verb.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this explanation?
使用较短的单词。每个句子使用较少的单词。使用主动动词。
省略手段。将摘要与具体内容联系起来。
在alt.english.usage中提问。剽窃Stroustrup，例如第1.7节。
Use shorter words. Use fewer words per sentence. Use active verbs.
Omit "a means for". Relate the abstract to the concrete.
Ask in alt.english.usage. Plagiarize Stroustrup, e.g. sect 1.7.
2004年4月18日，在Sun，Roger Smythe写道：
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Roger Smythe wrote:
进步的手段将问题空间分解为越来越简单的组件部分，使得这些组件部分代表更高级别的概念抽象，并且除了明确定义的接口之外完全相互独立。
您将OOP描述为基于组件的编程的一种手段，然后
给出后者的定义。虽然使用OOP将程序分解为组件肯定是一个好主意，但是OOP并不是唯一的b / b意味着什么。这样做。你也没有具体说明
面向对象的手段是什么。
为什么不引入类的概念来传达OOP是什么？
基本上，类（1）定义范围，（2）提供信息
通过访问修饰符隐藏，（3）构成一个类型可以
乘以实例化。
（此描述跳过OOP工具以重用代码 -
继承和聚合。）
这是试图向习惯于结构化编程范例的程序员解释OOP的要点。我尝试用可以争取的理想来解释OOP，即使这些理想在真实系统中可能永远不会完美实现。
有没有人对如何改进这个理念有任何想法解释？
我们的目标是在不超过一个简短的段落中为结构化的程序员提供OOP的好处。
A means for the progressive decomposition a problem space into increasingly simpler component parts
such that these component parts represent higher levels of conceptual abstraction, and are
completely independent of each other except for their well-defined interfaces.
You describe OOP as a means for component-based programming and then
give a definition of the latter. Although it''s certainly a good idea to
use OOP to decompose a program into components, OOP is not the only
"means" to do so. Also you don''t specify what precisely the
object-oriented means are.
Why not introduce the concept of a class to convey what OOP is?
Essentially, a class (1) defines a scope, (2) provides information
hiding through access modifiers, and (3) constitutes a type that can be
multiply instantiated.
(This description skips over the OOP facilities for code reuse -
inheritance and aggregation.)
This was an attempt to explain the gist of OOP to programmers accustomed to the
structured programming paradigm. I tried to explain OOP in terms of ideals that can
be striven for, even though these ideals may never be perfectly achieved in real systems.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this explanation?
The goal is to provide the gist of the benefits of OOP to structured
programmers in no more than a single short paragraph.
-
Claudio Jolowicz
--
Claudio Jolowicz
Roger Smythe< Ro ****** ***@hotmail.com>这样说：
Roger Smythe <Ro*********@hotmail.com> spoke thus:
将问题空间逐步分解为越来越简单的组成部分的方法
这些组件部分代表更高层次的概念抽象，并且
除了明确定义的接口外，彼此完全独立。
有没有人对如何改进这个解释有任何想法？
A means for the progressive decomposition a problem space into increasingly simpler component parts
such that these component parts represent higher levels of conceptual abstraction, and are
completely independent of each other except for their well-defined interfaces. Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this explanation?
我打赌comp.object上的人会有一些。
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome。 txt
http：//www.parashift。 com / c ++ - faq-lite /
-
Christopher Benson-Manica |我*应该*知道我在说什么 - 如果我
ataru（at）cyberspace.org |不，我需要知道。火焰欢迎。
I bet the people on comp.object would have some.
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I''m talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don''t, I need to know. Flames welcome.
这篇关于面向对象程序设计的要旨的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
