问题描述
逐步将问题空间分解为越来越简单的组件的方法
这样的组件部分代表更高级别的概念抽象，并且完全独立于b
$ b除了明确定义的界面之外，还有其他的。
这是试图向习惯于
结构化编程范例的程序员解释OOP的要点。我尝试用理想来解释OOP，即使这些理想在实际系统中永远不会完美实现。
有没有人对于如何改进这个解释有任何想法吗？
我们的目标是在不超过一个短段落中为结构化的
程序员提供OOP的好处。
A means for the progressive decomposition a problem space into increasingly simpler component parts
such that these component parts represent higher levels of conceptual abstraction, and are
completely independent of each other except for their well-defined interfaces.
This was an attempt to explain the gist of OOP to programmers accustomed to the
structured programming paradigm. I tried to explain OOP in terms of ideals that can
be striven for, even though these ideals may never be perfectly achieved in real systems.
Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve this explanation?
The goal is to provide the gist of the benefits of OOP to structured
programmers in no more than a single short paragraph.
推荐答案
使用较短的单词。每个句子使用较少的单词。使用主动动词。
省略手段。将摘要与具体内容联系起来。
在alt.english.usage中提问。剽窃Stroustrup，例如第1.7节。
Use shorter words. Use fewer words per sentence. Use active verbs.
Omit "a means for". Relate the abstract to the concrete.
Ask in alt.english.usage. Plagiarize Stroustrup, e.g. sect 1.7.
-
Claudio Jolowicz
--
Claudio Jolowicz
我打赌comp.object上的人会有一些。
-
Christopher Benson-Manica |我*应该*知道我在说什么 - 如果我
ataru（at）cyberspace.org |不，我需要知道。火焰欢迎。
I bet the people on comp.object would have some.
http://www.slack.net/~shiva/welcome.txt
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I''m talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don''t, I need to know. Flames welcome.
这篇关于面向对象程序设计的要旨的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！