Friday, May 25, 2007

A casual discussion on Complexity

OOP is a lot about Complexity. I read somewhere that "fortunately,even in the most complex systems there seems to have an underlying order". A software is a complex system that is why Object Orientation is favourite to Programmers. When I searched 'define:complexity' in Google
I could understand something like "the quality of being intricate and compounded".

When I was a student, my parents insisted on daily update of lessons (whatever taught has to be revised on the same day). They believed it could reduce complexity regarding my studies. I never cared this in my teenage, as I had plenty of romantic dreams(like most boys). And I never executed the above plan! I remember my mother's nervous colleague who had a number of wallets for keeping money for different purposes. We all are afraid of Complexity!? We find out a variety of methods for handling it. But sometimes I feel that Complexity is worthy (That is a different story). Some people are much bothered about this complexity and the implications of it ..At last they take asylum of spirituality (Where they say they can find Brahma-The ultimate knowledge). I don't do Share/Forex Trading because it I find it complex. My mom found Mathematics/Physics very Complex. Some say Theory of relativity is Complex. Thus complexity has different facets.

A surgeon, a civil engineer and a software engineer were chatting at a bar. The discussion rolled around to whose profession was the oldest. The surgeon said that his was, since in the book of Genesis, God created Eve from one of Adam's ribs, and surely that involved surgery. The civil engineer countered by saying that before God created man, he created the heavens and the Earth from chaos, surely a feat of civil engineering. The software engineer just smiled and said "Where do you think the chaos came from?"

That one was a well known joke! (Chaos is state of disorder; It is pronounced like 'Ke-yos')
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/COMPLEXI.html(Try this and let me know whether it was useful).
I feel, complexity is a characteristic 'God'? has filled while creating the world. He filled Abstraction also here-see my previous posts. And things are as we see/experience today because of complexity. Is complexity just residing inside mind, or it is there in the universe. I believe it is not just a feeling but some thing filled in nature. I believe so because of my exposure to ' Dialectical materialism'. This is becoming too informal...! Let me stop here. My friend is waiting as we planned to go for a movie. I 'll try to have a more authentic post on Complexity and reorganise(edit) this post. I am in a hurry as he is waiting.

By the way, OOP helps handling this complexity inherent to Software Systems.

2 comments:

Atlachinolli said...

Hello friend
This is a very good blog and I have some comments for you.

I'm involved in a personal project (a complex one) and while I was modeling it, came to me a lot of ideas based in the paradigm of object oriented programming. Then I search the web for "object oriented programming new theories or concepts" and got a few webs of interest. Finally, taking as starting point the wiki, I followed the references and the see-also sections. That's why I'm reading you know.

I must say that I share your interpretation of object oriented programming. Undoubtedly, it is based in human perception and the arrangement we do of the perceptual chaos in the universe.

However, I must disagree with you in one point. As I see it, abstraction is not dependable on who perceives it. I believe that abstraction is the first level of interpretation, the primitive one, where all perception join (of course, I'm talking here of human perception). I believe that reaching the point of abstraction (and I don't mean the correct one, but THE ONE) leads to a well-design enviroment and thus a good agreement point to start the various branches of interpretation derived from it ... just like we do with the abstraction of universal energy and the "encapsulation" in material object.

That was all about the "disagreement" :)

As a side note, I also share your critic about the work of Richard Mansfield. I think that what he should focus is our (including him, of course ... specially him :D ) inaccuracy for understanding OOP which is based in the inaccuracy for understanding our own interpretation of the world and how we, most of the time, are unable to get to the abstract vision of the chaos (energy) of the universe.
OOP is the more accurated aproximation to real-world modelling (as you say, first is Object Orientation and then comes the Programming stuff) and I believe, that for a better understanding and conceptualization focused in any problem, we should combine it with techniques like pattern and so ...

Keep going with a blog ... is a good one

Kiran Raveendranath said...

Thanks for the Comment-sounds brilliant that it takes time to analyse your criticism. I may appreciate your point that Abstraction(?) is inherent to the object! I 'll try to have a post on it. Let us try to reach in a fair conclusion.