[Oberon] Oberon for a C++ user.

[Jörg Straube]

Indeed, syntacticall an Oberon module is comparable to a namespace. But it is bound to only one file (namespaces can spawn more than one file).
Semantically however, to me namespaces have the notion of "visibility rules". Modules however have more the notion of "abstraction", and that's more than syntactically grouping and organizing visibility of (clashing) names. "Abstraction" includes DEFINITION of assets (data structures, constants, variables, procedures) and their IMPLEMENTATION.
As long as you don't change the definition (aka API), you can change the implementation and recompile your module. Nobody else using your abstracted assets has to re-compile his modules. I think all this semantic is missing from namespaces.

Jörg

> Am 05.09.2016 um 13:34 schrieb Lars <noreply at z505.com>:
> 
>> On Tue, January 19, 2016 8:42 pm, Srinivas Nayak wrote:
>> Dear All,
>> 
>> 
>> Reading the trilogy, now I have started to understand Oberon language.
>> Here I am trying to understand the concept of Module and Record little
>> more.
>> 
>> In C++, a Class defines the data fields.
>> So the internal representation of a concept remains hidden inside a
>> Class.
> 
> A record is almost exactly the same as a C struct, or a C++ class. A
> module is similar to a namespace. A module is like a static design time
> class that can't be dynamically created at run time... whereas an object
> in object oriented programming can be created at run time as many times as
> you want. A module is fixed at design time and can't be created using
> code.
> 
> Actually by loading modules into the system you sort of can create them in
> an environment like creating an object, so to learn the concept of a
> module it may be handy to just think of it like file with a namespace to
> its own. i.e. each module is named, such as MyModule, and can be accessed
> like a namespace. It is similar to accessing an objects methods however an
> object can be created at run time and accessed as a variable whereas a
> module is a static text file, not a variable.
> 
> Think of a module like a very limited class that you cannot create more of
> at run time, it's a static item you can only create at design time, just
> like a namespace.
> 
>> In Oberon, a Record defines the data fields.
>> So the internal representation of a concept remains hidden inside a
>> Record.
>> However, a Module (not the Record) selectively exposes what is ?
>> accessible
>> to outsiders. So Record takes care of encapsulation(internal
>> representation of a concept), But Module takes care of
>> abstraction(selectively exposing).
> 
> A module can be thought of as just a place to put things with a name
> space, at design time. An object on the other hand can be spawned at run
> time and placed into a variable.
> 
> The fact that there are all these different terms: class, record, struct,
> object, shows that computing science needs some serious rigor added.  The
> Third Manifesto by Date and Darwen tries to clear up some of the object
> orientation confusion by making suggestions (rude ones, even) about
> differentiating between a class and an object (an object is an instance of
> a class, at run time? whereas the class is the static design time
> definition or contract?).
> 
> The fact that we also have namespaces vs modules (the emperor has new
> clothes?) once again says that maybe computing science needs to be
> revisited and more rigorous terms need to be used instead of all these
> duplicate words for the same thing. There is definitely overlapping
> between what a namespace is, vs a module.  There is overlap between
> records, and structs, and objects, and classes.
> 
> Date and Darwen in the Third Manifesto go further and rename everything
> again.. instead of RECORDS you now have TUPLES.... SETS of TUPLES, ....
> instead of SQL's records, fields, etc. You also have RELATIONS, RELVARS
> (relational variables) and other items.
> 
> They try to add rigor and clarify what OOP really is in their book,
> however they are guilty of the emporer in new clothes too.. they come up
> with their own fancy (posh) terms and add even more language to the mix,
> trying to get rid of the old language and coming up with a new rigorous
> one.
> 
>> 
>> It makes me confusing, if I think encapsulation and abstraction are
>> related to each other and should go hand in hand.
> 
> 
> Then why does C++ have namespaces, and not just classes? Why not get rid
> of namespaces?
> 
> So basically if you are looking for what a module is think of it like a
> file, with a namespace that you can group together functions and items
> in..
> you can put whatever you want into a module file and then access its
> namespace.. using dot notation..
> 
> 
> Remember C++ namespaces? or even plain C has files, and instead of dot
> notation in plain C you go:
> 
> something_function
> 
> You make your own modules/namespaces in plain C by using underscores..
> 
> Example:
> 
> editor_set_text
> 
> editor_get_text
> 
> where editor is your made up namespace or module in C... In plain C
> instead of having built in modules or namespaces, people just used
> underscores to separate things.. you prefix sometimes your plain C
> functions with a repetitive word, with an underscore instead of dot
> notation.
> --
> Oberon at lists.inf.ethz.ch mailing list for ETH Oberon and related systems
> https://lists.inf.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/oberon