Board index » delphi » Object-Based VS Object-Oriented

Object-Based VS Object-Oriented

Hi everybody

I am trying to find the differences between object-base and object
oriented paradigms

VB is an example of object base programing language ( some times called
Component Base )
VC++ is an example of object oriented programing language

similar sounding but different paradigms .. differnet analysis and
design ..
different implementations .. different software management ..

Which one is better ?

What is the advantages and disadvantages of each paradigm ? what are
the limitations .. and what are the precautions ?

Assuming I have a talented team for both development tools VB and VC++,
when using VB is more appropriate than using VC++, and when the vise
versa ?
I mean by more appropriate is
        - faster development time ( i.e. less code and higher reusability )
                                   (     less time in Analysis and Design )
        - Cheaper maintainces and evolution to the system

What types of applications are best developed by VB compared to VC++ ?
what types of applications can not be developed by VB ?
what types of applications it does not affect that much using any
paradigm ?

Is it true that VB applications do not work without VB engine ? if so,is
there
any near solution to this ?

Is it true the VB is built using C++ ? if so , is it possible to use
the custom controls ( components ) of VB in VC++ ?
if not, then what prevents from achieving this ?

what are other languages ( in addition to VB ) considered as object-base
?
and what are other languages ( in addtion to VC++ ) considered as
object-oriented ?
and is there any thing in between ?

do these paradigms coexist ( i.e. each one is required for different
purposes )
or one of them is expected to prevail ( i.e. can cover all of the other
paradigm features
and more ? )

Thanks in advance for any participation ?
Regards :-)

Alkooheji
University of Sheffield
UK

      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-h...@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]

 

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.  

As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

Mark

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article
<32B08171....@poboxes.com>...

Quote
> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.  

> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

I believe that early implementations of Ada were object based.  I don't
know what
the latest "state of the art" (or lack thereof) is with Ada.  Last time I
paid any
attention, there was talk of true object-oriented Ada.

My $0.02 worth.

Dave.

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article

Quote
><32B08171....@poboxes.com>...
>> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
>> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.  

>> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

I most strongly disaggree with this statement. "Object Based" is nothing more
than a marketing term used to describe products that are not object oriented
when marketeers wnat to misleed people into thinking they are. "Object Based"
is like "Pregnancy Based".  You either are or you are not.

John

Wake up and smell the Clintons!

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
John M. Miano wrote:

> Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article
> ><32B08171....@poboxes.com>...
> >> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
> >> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.

> >> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

> I most strongly disaggree with this statement. "Object Based" is nothing more
> than a marketing term used to describe products that are not object oriented
> when marketeers wnat to misleed people into thinking they are. "Object Based"
> is like "Pregnancy Based".  You either are or you are not.

I strongly disagree with your statement :-)
Object ( Component ) Based languages deal with Objects..The developed
systems are simply
playing with attributes and methods of these objects..The amount of the
reusable
general components provided by these tools (eg. VB or Delphi) simplifies
significantly the process of  software development.
These components ( objects )  tackle most parts needed to develop a
system by the
 the majoroty of industrial and organisational institues.

Developing in thsee languages ( if proper components are provided ) is
much easier
compared to OOP languages ..You can use the traditional analysis and
design methods..that is why people do not find difficulty in using
them..

The additional features given by OOP languages gives more power to the
developer..but
at the same time requires much more efforts and special knowledge about
OO.. . Another reason that makes people avoid moving toward OOP is the
imbalance between effort needed to use these tools and the significance
of improvement on the software development process. Also there are
certain features in OOP that are still debateable like ( multiple
inheritance + effects on performance )  which gives an impression that
OOP is not yet mature to risk using them..

Regards
Ahmed Alkooheji
University of Sheffield

Quote
> John

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


In article <01bbe887$7cb9c900$5ed2d...@Davidc-w.tpower.com> "Dave Cappellucci" <dcapp...@usa.net> writes:

Quote
> Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article
> <32B08171....@poboxes.com>...
> > The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
> > oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.  

> > As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

The real problem with this issue is simply that there is no general
agreement on what these terms mean.  For example, someone earlier in
this thread claimed just the opposite here: OO is a proper subset of
OB.  And that is just a _hint_ of how meaningless all this has become.

Quote
> Last time I paid any attention, there was talk of true
> object-oriented Ada.

Been done.  The new ISO standard (informally known as Ada95) is OO by
most typical definitions of the term (including all the runtime
polymorphic stuff).  It also comes with out of the box full
interoperation with C, Fortran and COBOL.  Further there are _high_
quality implementations available for any of the typical popular
platforms (DOS, Win95/NT, all the usual UNI* including Linux, OS/2,
etc).  Many of these are _free_ as they are based on the GNU Ada95
compiler, GNAT.  Others such as ObjectAda from Aonix, come with full
blown Win95/NT visual IDEs, full interoperation with Win32/MFC, can
generate Java class files and interoperate with any other Java class
file, etc.  Professional versions are around $600.00, personal
versions around $250.00.

If you are looking for a nice alternative that combines many of the
best aspects of languages such as Sather and M3 with low level mucking
abilities of C++; which _is_ standardized; and which currently _does_
have high quality implementations, commercial presence and long term
viability, check it out.

/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
j...@organon.com

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
a.alkooheji (ahm...@dcs.shef.ac.uk) wrote:

: John M. Miano wrote:
: >
: > Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article
: > ><32B08171....@poboxes.com>...
: > >> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
: > >> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.
: > >>
: > >> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"
: >
: > I most strongly disaggree with this statement. "Object Based" is nothing more
: > than a marketing term used to describe products that are not object oriented
: > when marketeers wnat to misleed people into thinking they are. "Object Based"
: > is like "Pregnancy Based".  You either are or you are not.
: >

: I strongly disagree with your statement :-)
: Object ( Component ) Based languages deal with Objects..The developed
: systems are simply
: playing with attributes and methods of these objects..The amount of the
: reusable
: general components provided by these tools (eg. VB or Delphi) simplifies
: significantly the process of  software development.
: These components ( objects )  tackle most parts needed to develop a
: system by the
:  the majoroty of industrial and organisational institues.

You mean, "subroutine libraries" and "records".

--
Matthew B. Kennel/...@caffeine.engr.utk.edu/I do not speak for ORNL, DOE or UT
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
In article <32B19899.2781E...@dcs.shef.ac.uk>, "a.alkooheji" <ahm...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
>John M. Miano wrote:

>> Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article
>> ><32B08171....@poboxes.com>...
>> >> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
>> >> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.

>> >> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

>> I most strongly disaggree with this statement. "Object Based" is nothing more
>> than a marketing term used to describe products that are not object oriented
>> when marketeers wnat to misleed people into thinking they are. "Object Based"
>> is like "Pregnancy Based".  You either are or you are not.

>I strongly disagree with your statement :-)
>Object ( Component ) Based languages deal with Objects..The developed
>systems are simply
>playing with attributes and methods of these objects..The amount of the
>reusable
>general components provided by these tools (eg. VB or Delphi) simplifies
>significantly the process of  software development.
>These components ( objects )  tackle most parts needed to develop a
>system by the
> the majoroty of industrial and organisational institues.

You obviously gave not worked with marketing people. :-)  I used to work for a
major hardware/software vendor. When OO was at the peak of its hype a few
years ago anything that was not really OO was called Object Based.

The two conditions for being Object Oriented are

1. Inheritance
2. Polymorphism

Visual Basic has neither yet it is called "Object based".  VAX FORTRAN 77
would have had as much of a claim of being "Object Based" if the designers had
used the keyword "OBJECT" instead of "STRUCTURE".

John

Wake up and smell the Clintons!

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Ada 95 is supposed to be object oriented.  It supports inheritance,
polymorphism, etc.  I have only limited experience with Ada 95 so I
couldn't tell you for sure.  (ok, I took a grad level class this semester
on it, didn't go much into the OO aspects of it though).

Bryce

p.s.  I got something in the mail the other day about a RAD tool using Ada.
 Anyone else seen this?

Quote
> > As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

> I believe that early implementations of Ada were object based.  I don't
> know what
> the latest "state of the art" (or lack thereof) is with Ada.  Last time I
> paid any
> attention, there was talk of true object-oriented Ada.

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Object based languages has always meant (at least to me) supporting ADTs
(such as Ada 83).  They allow (within the constructs of the language)
information hiding and encapsulation.  You can program using the Object
Oriented methodology without using a so-called "object oriented language".
I do agree, however, that the term "object based" has been used to denote
visual programming.

Bryce

Quote
> >> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
> >> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.

> >> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object
based?"

> I most strongly disaggree with this statement. "Object Based" is nothing
more
> than a marketing term used to describe products that are not object
oriented
> when marketeers wnat to misleed people into thinking they are. "Object
Based"
> is like "Pregnancy Based".  You either are or you are not.

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
John M. Miano wrote:
> You obviously gave not worked with marketing people. :-)  I used to work for a
> major hardware/software vendor. When OO was at the peak of its hype a few
> years ago anything that was not really OO was called Object Based.

> The two conditions for being Object Oriented are

> 1. Inheritance
> 2. Polymorphism

> Visual Basic has neither yet it is called "Object based".  VAX FORTRAN 77
> would have had as much of a claim of being "Object Based" if the designers had
> used the keyword "OBJECT" instead of "STRUCTURE".

I agree that the terms are used loosely in the industry and certainly by
marketing people who don't understand our work and don't care to.  It
seems clear that Microsoft wanted to throw that "object" word around in
marketing VB 4.0, even though it was certainly not object oriented.  I'm
no fan of VB, but I personally didn't find it offensive that they used
the term "object based" since they added support for _some_ OO ideas
like member functions, encapsulation, and private and public
declarations.  It was a step in the right direction for that language
IMO.

Quote
Ahmed Alkooheji wrote:
> Object ( Component ) Based languages deal with Objects..The developed
> systems are simply
> playing with attributes and methods of these objects..The amount of the
> reusable
> general components provided by these tools (eg. VB or Delphi) simplifies
> significantly the process of  software development.

Just a minor nitpick here, Delphi supports Inheritance (even visually in
the RAD environment in v2), Polymorphism and all the cool OO stuff
except multiple inheritance.  So it's in quite a different category than
VB in that regard.

Quote
Matthew B. Kennel wrote:
> Ahmed Alkooheji wrote: (continuing on about VB and Delphi)
> : These components ( objects )  tackle most parts needed to develop a
> : system by the
> :  the majoroty of industrial and organisational institues.

> You mean, "subroutine libraries" and "records".

Once again, VB 4.0 does support _some_ OO concepts, and Delphi all but
multiple inheritance.

Quote
Bryce Fischer wrote:
> Object based languages has always meant (at least to me) supporting ADTs
> (such as Ada 83).  They allow (within the constructs of the language)
> information hiding and encapsulation.  You can program using the Object
> Oriented methodology without using a so-called "object oriented language".
> I do agree, however, that the term "object based" has been used to denote
> visual programming.

If anyone uses object based to denote visual programming, I think it's a
misuse of terminology.  I think distinctions can get blurred in modern
programming environments because they include so many things besides the
compiler itself.  I suppose a novice (or a marketing person) may get the
mistaken idea that Microsoft Visual C++ is C++, and incorrectly talk
about features of the developer studio, the foundation classes, etc. as
if they were part of the C++ language.  Add to that the fact that some
products like "Visual Basic" use the name to refer to both the language
and its development environment, and I can see how it might be
confusing.

Mark

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
John M. Miano wrote:

> In article <32B19899.2781E...@dcs.shef.ac.uk>, "a.alkooheji" <ahm...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
> >John M. Miano wrote:

> >> Mark Nelson <mnel...@poboxes.com> wrote in article
> >> ><32B08171....@poboxes.com>...
> >> >> The short answer is that "object based" is a subset of "object
> >> >> oriented."  Specifically, Visual Basic lacks support for inheritance.

> >> >> As an aside, are there other languages that claim to be "object based?"

> >> I most strongly disaggree with this statement. "Object Based" is nothing more
> >> than a marketing term used to describe products that are not object oriented
> >> when marketeers wnat to misleed people into thinking they are. "Object Based"
> >> is like "Pregnancy Based".  You either are or you are not.

> >I strongly disagree with your statement :-)
> >Object ( Component ) Based languages deal with Objects..The developed
> >systems are simply
> >playing with attributes and methods of these objects..The amount of the
> >reusable
> >general components provided by these tools (eg. VB or Delphi) simplifies
> >significantly the process of  software development.
> >These components ( objects )  tackle most parts needed to develop a
> >system by the
> > the majoroty of industrial and organisational institues.

> You obviously gave not worked with marketing people. :-)  I used to work for a
> major hardware/software vendor. When OO was at the peak of its hype a few
> years ago anything that was not really OO was called Object Based.

> The two conditions for being Object Oriented are

> 1. Inheritance
> 2. Polymorphism

Right. If you look in Booch, Object Oriented Analysis and Design, you'll
find the definition of "object-based programming" in the glossary as
"...programs whose types are all members of a hierarchy of types united
via other than inheritance relationsships...". Likewise Ian Graham in
Object Oriented Methods [pg 28] says "object-based = encapsulation +
object identity, object-oriented = class-based + inheritance +
self-recursion."

I agree that the term is basically hype. At the peak of the OO wave,
there weren't that many languages, and people tried to implement OO
ideas in the standard languages such as (gasp!) Fortran and Pascal and
Lisp.  It was really ugly, but if it wasn't absolutely impossible to
cobble up some sort of implementation of an abstract data type in the
language, the language was dutifully christened "object-based". It's
sort of like saying Latin is "English-based" because you can express an
idea from English in Latin, albeit badly).

Cheers

Luther Hampton

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
John M. Miano wrote:
> You obviously gave not worked with marketing people. :-)  I used to
> work for a major hardware/software vendor. When OO was at the peak of
> its hype a few years ago anything that was not really OO was called
> Object Based.

> The two conditions for being Object Oriented are

> 1. Inheritance
> 2. Polymorphism

> Visual Basic has neither yet it is called "Object based".  VAX
> FORTRAN 77 would have had as much of a claim of being "Object Based"
> if the designers had used the keyword "OBJECT" instead of
> "STRUCTURE".

I am trying to recall the add from a few years ago. I believe it was
for a new HP server. Anyway, at the bottom, the add said "Fully
Buzzword Enabled".

That also reminds me of the Doonesbury cartoon from a long time
ago. A guy goes into a computer store, armed with a 'phrase book' to
help him talk with the sales folks. "Excuse me, sir", he stumbles as
he looks through the book, "do you have any user friendly sales reps?"
"Oh, you mean customer-compatible liveware", the sales guy responds,
"he's out today."

                                             Jeff Miller
                                             Senior Server Architect
                                             CSG Systems, Inc.
                                             jeff_mil...@csgsys.com
                                             jmil...@probe.net

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


Quote
In article <32B36D3F.4...@erols.com>, lhamp...@erols.com wrote:
>Right. If you look in Booch, Object Oriented Analysis and Design, you'll
>find the definition of "object-based programming" in the glossary as
>"...programs whose types are all members of a hierarchy of types united
>via other than inheritance relationsships...". Likewise Ian Graham in
>Object Oriented Methods [pg 28] says "object-based = encapsulation +
>object identity, object-oriented = class-based + inheritance +
>self-recursion."

There are two interestings thing about the point you made:

1. The two definitions of "Object Based" are quite different.
2. How many "Object Based" systems adhere to either one of them?

John

Wake up and smell the Clintons!

Re:Object-Based VS Object-Oriented


On Fri, 13 Dec 96 21:59:10 GMT, mi...@worldnet.att.net (John M. Miano)
wrote:

Quote
>The two conditions for being Object Oriented are

>1. Inheritance
>2. Polymorphism

Most conventional definitions add:

3. Encapsulation

Quote
>Visual Basic has neither yet it is called "Object based".

This is not quite true - VB 3.0 supports encapsulation and
polymorphism for it's component objects (VBXs, which are usually
written in C or C++).  VB 4.0 supports encapsulation and polymorphism
for VB code as well.

You are correct in saying that there is no support for inheritance - a
major limitation, IMO.

BTW, MS was claiming inheritance was a Bad Idea for components.  I'm
still waiting for any solid examples that this is true.

-Tom

 VAX FORTRAN 77

Quote
>would have had as much of a claim of being "Object Based" if the designers had
>used the keyword "OBJECT" instead of "STRUCTURE".

>John

>Wake up and smell the Clintons!

----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bushell           * Custom Software Development
Telekinetics            * Process Improvement Consulting
2653 Highway 202          * Technical Writing
RR#1, Elmsdale, NS
B0N 1M0
(902)632-2772         Email: tbush...@fox.nstn.ns.ca
----------------------------------------------------------
Go to page: [1] [2]

Other Threads