Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
started 11/10/2003; 1:33:36 AM - last post 11/11/2003; 11:29:01 PM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/10/2003; 1:33:36 AM (reads: 7697, responses: 12)
|
|
Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages |
Bart Jacobs, Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages. Electr. Notes in Comp. Sci. 11, 1998. Special issue on the workshop Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science (CMCS 1998)
A very short and accessible introduction.
Figure 2 that shows an example of the late binding semantics of Java, is a good way to make sure you understand what OOP is about (and for use on your friends and coworkers).
The best sentence in this paper, as far as I am concerned, is this one:
Discussing these mechanisms [inheritance and aggregation] within the LOOP tool would lead too far, but they form of course essential ingredients of the object-oriented pardaigm -- whatever that may be.
Posted to OOP by Ehud Lamm on 11/10/03; 2:01:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Bart van der Werf (Bluelive) - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/10/2003; 6:01:01 AM (reads: 522, responses: 2)
|
|
.ps.Z ? how can i view this one :)
|
|
Sjoerd Visscher - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/10/2003; 6:39:32 AM (reads: 496, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/10/2003; 9:21:26 AM (reads: 486, responses: 1)
|
|
As the Brits would say, are you taking the piss, mate?
|
|
scruzia - Re: (postscript and "compress")
11/10/2003; 9:37:09 AM (reads: 498, responses: 0)
|
|
I suppose Bart isn't being serious (there is a sorta smiley there), but it is a reasonable question.
The old .Z compress format is, as far as I know, Unix-only, and plain postscript lost the popularity battle about a dozen years ago. I find it amusing how many folk in academia think that .ps is still a reasonable format in which to publish papers. Do they realize to what extent they are reducing their audience by failing to provide HTML and/or PDF versions?
Yes, I know about the Ghostscript free .ps viewer, but its usability is quite poor compared with Adobe's Acrobat reader.
|
|
David B. Wildgoose - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/10/2003; 10:11:33 AM (reads: 458, responses: 0)
|
|
On the contrary, the "old .Z compress format" is handled with aplomb by WinZip on Windows machines, and Ghostscript's usability is only poor if you are running the Windows version. And have you tried getting a PDF reader for WinCE handhelds like my Jornada 720?
You've still made a fair point though. Lyx can output a number of formats, (this looks like a Lyx document), so it makes sense to output a variety in order to be "all things to all men".
|
|
Christian Lindig - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/10/2003; 10:22:56 AM (reads: 447, responses: 0)
|
|
GNU's gzip(1) command handles .Z files (produced by Unix's compress(1) command) just fine.
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/11/2003; 2:48:15 AM (reads: 357, responses: 0)
|
|
So the only reaction this gets is complaints about the file type?
|
|
Karl Reitschuster - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/11/2003; 5:53:33 AM (reads: 345, responses: 0)
|
|
Hi,
i am not a scientist, this article is to hard for me :-(
Carl
|
|
Dominic Fox - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/11/2003; 9:16:18 AM (reads: 324, responses: 2)
|
|
The bar for understanding computer science concepts based on category theory is raised pretty high, for those of us with limited experience of doing formal mathematics. I think it's a shame that these concepts aren't more widely understood - personally I'm ashamed of being so little able to understand them - as some of them seem very useful. I wonder whether they're capable of popularisation? Category theory may perhaps be irreducibly hard, but is bisimilarity by itself really that difficult to understand? The idea of an interface as a functor in a coalgebra may not come "naturally" to many working programmers, but that surely doesn't mean that it should not come at all. After all, VB programmers can be taught to love anamorphisms - without even knowing that they are doing so...
|
|
Ehud Lamm - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/11/2003; 9:19:49 AM (reads: 320, responses: 0)
|
|
Those trying to get a hnadle on these concepts are urged to read the tutorial on (co)induction and (co)algebras (here)
|
|
Marc Hamann - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/11/2003; 11:09:35 AM (reads: 319, responses: 0)
|
|
I wonder whether they're capable of popularisation? Category theory may perhaps be irreducibly hard, but is bisimilarity by itself really that difficult to understand?
Actually, I don't believe that category theory is fundamentally any harder to understand than any other abstract math.
There are two problems with it that make it seem harder:
1. We aren't as familiar with it, because it isn't (yet) taught as basic math in schools.
2. Historically, it arose from very specialized applications in algebraic topology that turned out to have more generally applicable properties. For this reason, most texts use motivating examples taken from "heavy" maths that probably make the basic ideas seem more daunting to a normally educated person.
Some anecdotal evidence: I read an article in the paper a while back about a local mathematician (who is also a playwright) who has a side-line as a math tutor for children. Apparently he introduces them to basic CT with no difficulty.
|
|
Bart van der Werf (Bluelive) - Re: Coalgebraic Reasoning about Classes in Object-Oriented Languages
11/11/2003; 11:29:01 PM (reads: 285, responses: 0)
|
|
I was joking a bit, i do know about .Z and .ps but as a windows user its still not very viewable.
Personally i think ps should go the same way as the printers that understand them.
|
|
|
|