Return to Answer

An object in physics is anything that maintains recognizable coherence over time. That in turn allows simple creatures like ourselves to get a way with representing the object using only a small number of bits, without endangering our survival too badly. But in terms of physics in the large, the number of things you have to get exactly right to make that kind of simplification easy and common is remarkably large. As humans we don't think about all of that much because quite frankly, we wouldn't be here if it were not true.

An object in physics is anything that maintains recognizable coherence over time. That in turn allows simple creatures like ourselves to get away with representing the object using only a small number of bits, without endangering our survival too badly. But in terms of physics in the large, the number of things you have to get exactly right to make that kind of simplification easy and common is remarkably large. As humans we don't think about all of that much because quite frankly, we wouldn't be here if it were not true.

This last category also points the risks of using just one model for programming, since just like the real world, programmed worlds also need processes that don't correspond well to relatively unchanging objects. Earth is full of objects, but the sun is full of highly dynamic energy flows that ultimately are needed to "drive" the objects and activities on lower-energy earth. Similarly, in creating computing worlds there are cases where you must deal with flows and transformations and rapidly changing contexts that, while not very object-like in themselves, are nonetheless absolutely critical to enabling the simpler, more human-friendly objects used at higher levels. It is no coincidence that much of the programming done at the kernel level is not conspicuously object-like, or that it tends to rely heavily on languages like C that are more processing oriented. These are the deeper domains that complement the fascinating diversity we see higher up in computer generated worlds. Trying to force them into pure object models can be a bit like telling the sun it needs to be re-organized as a few billion tidy fireplace objects so that we can understand and navigate more easily form our humans-first perspective.

This last category also points the risks of using just one model for programming, since just like the real world, programmed worlds also need processes that don't correspond well to relatively unchanging objects. Earth is full of objects, but the sun is full of highly dynamic energy flows that ultimately are needed to "drive" the objects and activities on lower-energy earth. Similarly, in creating computing worlds there are cases where you must deal with flows and transformations and rapidly changing contexts that, while not very object-like in themselves, are nonetheless absolutely critical to enabling the simpler, more human-friendly objects used at higher levels. It is no coincidence that much of the programming done at the kernel level is not conspicuously object-like, or that it tends to rely heavily on languages like C that are more processing oriented. These are the deeper domains that complement the fascinating diversity we see higher up in computer generated worlds. Trying to force them into pure object models can be a bit like telling the sun it needs to be re-organized as a few billion tidy fireplace objects so that we can understand and navigate more easily from our humans-first perspective.

I should mention that I'm always a bit surprised when OOP is presented in programming course as a sort of "final model" that is the only possible endpoint for good programming. Like many other aspects of programming, the value of OOP is a compromise between many competing factors, including how human brains organized information, how societal groups support software over the long term, and in the case of object-oriented programming, some pretty deep aspects of how the universe itself works.

And that last point is worth hammering a bit. Read further only if you are interested in a physics-level exploration of why certain programming styles exist, how they work together, and where the world may be heading in the future as we expand further on such concepts...

I should mention that I'm always a bit surprised when OOP is presented in programming courses as a sort of "final model" that is the only possible endpoint for good programming. Like many other aspects of programming, the value of OOP is a compromise between many competing factors, including how human brains organized information, how societal groups support software over the long term, and in the case of object-oriented programming, some pretty deep aspects of how the universe itself works.

And that last point is worth hammering a bit. Read further if you are interested in a physics-level exploration of why certain programming styles exist, how they work together, and where the world may be heading in the future as we expand further on such concepts...