From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2002-12-06T05:35:21+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby Book for People Who Aren't (Yet) Programmers

Austin Ziegler <austin@halostatue.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:31:57 +0900, Martin DeMello wrote:
>> I feel that the "a box with an ID, that can store data and
>> methods" description takes care of the fundamental "what *is* an
>> object, exactly?" problem.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I agree. I also think that describing an object as having
> uniqueness, value, and behaviour is also a good way of saying it.
> (It may not have been obvious from my splitting up the description.)
> I'm thinking something like:
> 
>  An object is the fundamental unit in Ruby. Objects can represent
>  numbers, text (called /String/s), collections of objects (called
>  /Array/s and /Hash/es), or just about anything else. Objects are
>  essentially boxes with unique identification, value, and
>  behaviour.
> 
>    * Unique. Two objects...
>    * Value. Most objects...
>    * Behaviour. ...

At this point, is there any reason *not* to mention the object id?
"Unique identification" is a rather abstract concept, whereas the idea
of uniqueness imposed via a globally unique id number is a common one
from real life. Also, knowing the mechanism involved is often helpful in
understanding and remembering why things are the way they are. 

martin