RE: [opengoop inheritance] Virtual Methods should be called Dynamic Methods

[Jim K. <ji...@ji...>]

Niels and Bj=F8rnar,

After listening to the arguments you both make, I agree that "abstract"
might be the best term to use, rather than "dynamic".  Also, I think =
that
"prototype" has an OOP design pattern (Gang of Four) definition and
"template" has an edit-time connotation, which make these two choices =
not
very attractive.

-Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ope...@li...=20
> [mailto:ope...@li...]=20
> On Behalf Of Svingen Bj=F8rnar
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 12:23 AM
> To: 'ope...@li...'
> Subject: RE: [opengoop inheritance] Virtual Methods should be=20
> called Dynamic Methods
>=20
>=20
> I only have limited experience with OOP from C++ some years=20
> ago. IMO virtual, dynamic and abstract are misleading, since=20
> what you are defining is more of a template (dynamic=20
> template) or prototype. "Dynamic" is not that far off seen in=20
> context, but when left alone it sounds strange. All in all i=20
> think "abstract" is better.
>=20
> Just my $0.02
>=20
> =20
>=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Niels Harre [mailto:ni...@ha...]
> > Sent: 6. november 2003 23:22
> > To: ope...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [opengoop inheritance] Virtual Methods should=20
> be called=20
> > Dynamic Methods
> >=20
> >=20
> > Howdy,
> >=20
> > I've given the suggestion some thought.. I agree that
> > "Virtual Virtual=20
> > Instruments" doesn't sound too good. But I'm not too sure we=20
> > should change=20
> > the name to "Dynamic Methods".
> >=20
> > The case with double adjectives in "Virtual Virtual
> > Instrument" may also=20
> > arise when using "Dynamic": Consider the explanation "A=20
> > dynamic method=20
> > dynamically calls (using VI server) a method in a descendant=20
> > class". In my=20
> > opinion pretty much the same, and too close to the underlying=20
> > technology.
> >=20
> > The question is: What is a "Virtual Method" thought to accomplish?
> >=20
> > - it defines an interface (the connector pane).
> > - it has no implementation in the class where it is defined.
> > - its implementation is deferred to a descendant class.
> >=20
> > That is an abstraction... consequently I suggest that
> > "Virtual Methods"=20
> > should be called "Abstract Methods". Also, - taking it a step=20
> > further -=20
> > what about classes having the same features as listed=20
> > above... Should they=20
> > be called "Dynamic Classes". The class itself is not dynamic.=20
> > However, -=20
> > "Abstract Classes" are abstractions...
> >=20
> > Please let me know what you think. Even though I don't belive
> > we should=20
> > spend too much time on this.
> >=20
> > All the best
> > Niels
> >=20
> > At 20:16 05-11-2003 +0000, Jim wrote:
> > >Hello All,
> > >
> > >Stephen Mercer, a member of the LabVIEW Development Team at
> > NI, attended our
> > >group meeting last night.  During the OpenGOOP Inheritance
> > discussion he
> > >recommended that we call Virtual Methods "Dynamic Methods"
> > to avoid confusion
> > >with the term Virtual Instruments (we don't want Virtual Virtual=20
> > >Instruments).  I like this idea.  Any objections or comments?
> > >
> > >-Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >-------------------------------------------------------
> > >This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does=20
> > >SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> > >help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> > >YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/=20
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list=20
> > >Ope...@li...
> >=20
> >> =
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does=20
> > SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> > help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> > YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/=20
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list=20
> > Ope...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers
> >=20
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.=20
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/=20
> _______________________________________________
> OpenGToolkit-Developers mailing list=20
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opengtoolkit-developers
>=20