From: Walter Prins <prins@...>
Date: 2006-01-26T20:37:55+09:00
Subject: Re: [ruby-talk] Class is object? :very_sleepy

consider a class as a "blueprint object"... problem solved. 

Remember, in OO "everything" is an object.  But just because everything 
is an object, does not mean they're the *same* (or even similar.)   A 
class is rather different to instances of classes (which we call objects 
with a slightly different emphasis) for sure, but if you step away far 
enough you can still call them _both_ objects in a more general sense.  
So "a class" is-a "object", but in a more general sense.  You can make 
the same argument about methods and many other things.  To me it's a 
subtle shift of perspective, and indeed *more* OO than languages where 
you *don't* have the notion of treating most things as an object...

My �0.02 anyway



Alex Combas wrote:

>Was just thinking today, earlier, but at the moment
>I'm not reallly thinking, I'm mostly asleep right now,
>so probably shouldnt be writing, let alone typing, and
>especially not with this much Nightquil chugging though me..
>
>BUT OK!!
>TITLE: Class are objects!?!
>Here is my question: Does having class variables (@@) and
>class methods (MyClass.foo) destroy the whole OO design concept?
>I've always thought of classes like blueprints, and objects like, well, objects
>made from the blueprints. So thinking of classes as objects themselves
>that have :attributes, @@variables, and def methods kind of wrecks
>my "blueprint" metaphore.
>
>I know I'm wrong, I probably should have wrote that at the top in
>big green letters. I just want to throw this out and see just how many
>ways I can be proven wrong so that I can learn and maybe
>one of the ways will stick like a wet noodle on the wall of my brain
>for long enough that I dont have to ask this question again next week.
>
>What I would really like is a better metaphore for class!
>Thanks!
>
>--
>Alex Combas
>http://noodlejunkie.blogspot.com/
>
>
>  
>