Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

This paper proposes an approach to introducing object-oriented concepts to high school computer science students using the Object-Oriented Turing (OOT) language. Students can learn about basic object-oriented (OO) principles such as classes and inheritance by using and expanding a collection of classes that draw pictures like circles and happy faces. Materials are outlined for a two-week teaching unit which support this approach. The units cover: (1) three foundational OO concepts: objects, classes and inheritance; (2) diagrams and relations; (3) software development environments; (4) the OOT language and environment; (5) OOT in an undergraduate curriculum; and (6) OOT at the high school level. (Contains 17 references.) (Author/BEW)

The statements `inheritance is not subtyping' and `mainstream OO languages unnecessarily place restrictions over inheritance' have rippled as mantras through the PL research community for years. Many mainstream OO developers and OO language designers however do not accept these statements. In \emph{nominally-typed} OO languages that these developers and language designers are dearly familiar with, inheritance simply is subtyping; and they believe OO type inheritance is an inherently nominal notion not a structural one. Nominally-typed OO languages are among the most used programming languages today. However, the value of nominal typing to mainstream OO developers, as a means for designing robust OO software, seems to be in wait for full appreciation among PL researchers--thereby perpetuating an unnecessary schism between many OO developers and language designers and many OO PL researchers, with each side discounting, if not even disregarding, the views of the other. In this essay we strengthen earlier efforts to demonstrate the semantic value of nominal typing by presenting a technical comparison between nominal OO type systems and structural OO type systems. Recently, a domain-theoretic model of nominally-typed OOP was compared to well-known models of structurally-typed OOP. Combined, these comparisons provide a clear and deep account for the relation between nominal and structural OO type systems that has not been presented before, and they help demonstrate the key value of nominal typing and nominal subtyping to OO developers and language designers. We believe a clearer understanding of the key semantic advantage of pure nominal OO typing over pure structural OO typing can help remedy the existing schism. We believe future foundational OO PL research, to further its relevance to mainstream OOP, should be based less on structural models of OOP and more on nominal ones instead.

The statements `inheritance is not subtyping' and `mainstream OO languages unnecessarily place restrictions over inheritance' have rippled as mantras through the PL research community for years. Many mainstream OO developers and OO language designers however do not accept these statements. In \emph{nominally-typed} OO languages that these developers and language designers are dearly familiar with, inheritance simply is subtyping; and they believe OO type inheritance is an inherently nominal notion not a structural one. Nominally-typed OO languages are among the most used programming languages today. However, the value of nominal typing to mainstream OO developers, as a means for designing robust OO software, seems to be in wait for full appreciation among PL researchers--thereby perpetuating an unnecessary schism between many OO developers and language designers and many OO PL researchers, with each side discounting, if not even disregarding, the views of the other. In this essay we strengthen earlier efforts to demonstrate the semantic value of nominal typing by presenting a technical comparison between nominal OO type systems and structural OO type systems. Recently, a domain-theoretic model of nominally-typed OOP was compared to well-known models of structurally-typed OOP. Combined, these comparisons provide a clear and deep account for the relation between nominal and structural OO type systems that has not been presented before, and they help demonstrate the key value of nominal typing and nominal subtyping to OO developers and language designers. We believe a clearer understanding of the key semantic advantage of pure nominal OO typing over pure structural OO typing can help remedy the existing schism. We believe future foundational OO PL research, to further its relevance to mainstream OOP, should be based less on structural models of OOP and more on nominal ones instead.

Object-Oriented Programming Manual for THINK Pascal version 4.0 for Macintosh.

Object-Oriented Programming Manual for THINK Pascal version 4.0 for Macintosh.

Object-Oriented Programming Manual for THINK Pascal version 4.0 for Macintosh.

For the right application, the use of programming paradigms such as functional or logic programming can enormously increase productivity in software development. But these powerful paradigms are tied to exotic programming languages, while the management of software development dictates standardization on a single language. This dilemma can be resolved by using object-oriented programming in a new way. It is conventional to analyze an application by object-oriented modeling. In the new approach, the analysis identifies the paradigm that is ideal for the application; development starts with object-oriented modeling of the paradigm. In this paper we illustrate the new approach by giving examples of object-oriented modeling of dataflow and constraint programming. These examples suggest that it is no longer necessary to embody a programming paradigm in a language dedicated to it.

For the right application, the use of programming paradigms such as functional or logic programming can enormously increase productivity in software development. But these powerful paradigms are tied to exotic programming languages, while the management of software development dictates standardization on a single language. This dilemma can be resolved by using object-oriented programming in a new way. It is conventional to analyze an application by object-oriented modeling. In the new approach, the analysis identifies the paradigm that is ideal for the application; development starts with object-oriented modeling of the paradigm. In this paper we illustrate the new approach by giving examples of object-oriented modeling of dataflow and constraint programming. These examples suggest that it is no longer necessary to embody a programming paradigm in a language dedicated to it.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has defined modeling and simulation as an area of technology critical to long-term U.S. national security. Research in this area by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL) has included the development of the Force Structure Tradeoff Analysis Model (FSTAM) combat engineering modeling and simulation program for the U.S. Army Engineer School (USAES). Recent advances in object-oriented programming and hypertext systems have helped stimulate interest is upgrading FSTAM. As part of a separate-but-related initiative, Analysis Command of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) sponsored the development of ModSim, an object- oriented programming language for simulation applications. This language was recognized as a highly valuable tool for application in the planned upgrade of FSTAM. This report describes USACERL's application of object-oriented programming techniques to the development of combat simulations-specifically, combat engineer functional representations. Included is discussion of current research prototypes of FSTAM 2.0 and an enhanced version of ModSim.

IBM VisualAge for COBOL for OS/2 Object-Oriented Programming January 1996 SG24-4606-00 International Technical Support Organization IBM First Edition (January 1996) This edition applies to Version 1, Release 1, of IBM VisualAge for COBOL for OS/2 (Part number 28H2177) for use with OS/2 2.1 or higher. The examples in this edition require a Corrective Service Disk (CSD) that is planned to be applied to IBM VisualAge for COBOL for OS/2 Version 1, Release 1 product in the first quarter of 1996.

IBM VisualAge for COBOL for OS/2 Object-Oriented Programming January 1996 SG24-4606-00 International Technical Support Organization IBM First Edition (January 1996) This edition applies to Version 1, Release 1, of IBM VisualAge for COBOL for OS/2 (Part number 28H2177) for use with OS/2 2.1 or higher. The examples in this edition require a Corrective Service Disk (CSD) that is planned to be applied to IBM VisualAge for COBOL for OS/2 Version 1, Release 1 product in the first quarter of 1996.

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.194240 dc.contributor.author: E.dhanabal dc.date.accessioned: 2015-07-08T04:10:53Z dc.date.available: 2015-07-08T04:10:53Z dc.date.digitalpublicationdate: 2005-09-27 dc.identifier.barcode: 1990010092491 dc.identifier.origpath: /rawdataupload/upload/0092/491 dc.identifier.copyno: 1 dc.identifier.uri: http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/194240 dc.description.scannerno: 14 dc.description.scanningcentre: IIIT, Allahabad dc.description.main: 1 dc.description.tagged: 0 dc.description.totalpages: 64 dc.format.mimetype: application/pdf dc.language.iso: English dc.publisher: Indian Institute Of Technology Kanpur dc.rights: Out_of_copyright dc.source.library: Indian Institute Of Technology Kanpur dc.subject.classification: Technology dc.subject.classification: Engineering. Technology In General dc.subject.classification: Computer Science & Engineering dc.title: Vastu-an Enviroment For Distributed Object Oriented Programming

Includes bibliographical references (p. 723-724) and index

Includes bibliographical references (p. 723-724) and index

Includes bibliographical references (p. 723-724) and index

Includes bibliographical references (p. 723-724) and index

123

123

From the description: " Object Oriented C ( ooc ) kit is for those who want to program in an object orieneted manner, but stick on the good old C as well. ooc implements classes, single and multiple inheritance, exception handling. Ideal for students getting to know OO programming in pure C." I want to make sure this is preserved someplace as this has been a most valuable resource for me in research and in adapting the methods outlined in  my own programming projects. Links: http://ooc-coding.sourceforge.net/ http://www.cs.rit.edu/~ats/books/ooc.pdf http://www.cs.rit.edu/~ats/books/ooc-02.01.04.tar.gz Licensed Under LGPL-3 ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html )

الموقع www.aldarayn.com الصفحة http://www.facebook.com/Aldarayn المنتدي www.aldarayn.net

الموقع www.aldarayn.com الصفحة http://www.facebook.com/Aldarayn المنتدي www.aldarayn.net

الموقع www.aldarayn.com الصفحة http://www.facebook.com/Aldarayn المنتدي www.aldarayn.net

MITRE has implemented the Battlefield Environment Model (BEM) in ROSS, and object-oriented programming language, to provide a demonstration facility and basis for the evaluation of object-oriented programming for the Army hierarchy of combat models. The BEM was constructed in the MITRE Secure Processing Laboratory located in the MITRE Washington offices. This paper discusses object-oriented programming, describes the BEM and provides findings and observations on the implementation of BEM in ROSS and the utility of object-oriented programming. (Author)

MITRE has implemented the Battlefield Environment Model (BEM) in ROSS, and object-oriented programming language, to provide a demonstration facility and basis for the evaluation of object-oriented programming for the Army hierarchy of combat models. The BEM was constructed in the MITRE Secure Processing Laboratory located in the MITRE Washington offices. This paper discusses object-oriented programming, describes the BEM and provides findings and observations on the implementation of BEM in ROSS and the utility of object-oriented programming. (Author)

scan of unit Collections: Arrays, strings and StringBuilders Unit 9 M255 Object-oriented programming with Java 2nd edition by The M255 Course Team [2008] {005.133--oclc}

Object-oriented programming techniques have become a vital part of modern software engineering. Most large new commercial software products are designed today using objects oriented principles along with supporting development environments and tools. Such methodology is particularly appealing for parallel computing, where there is great need for approaches capable of simplifying the programming task and producing high quality software more quickly. In this project we have carried out research that will lead to a new parallel object-oriented language based on C++. The new language, C++-Linda, is a novel combination of the most widely used object-oriented language and a successful environment for parallel computing that supports a virtual shared memory model for process interaction. This combination is an especially appropriate one because Linda's memory model is naturally object-oriented, enabling a seamless design that is completely consistent with object-oriented methodology. In this Phase I project, we have carried out research to understand the basic issues underlying parallel object-oriented languages, and we have created a preliminary design for C++-Linda. In a future Phase II project, we plan to develop a prototype implementation that will serve as a guide for eventual commercialization. Parallel computing, Programming languages, Object-oriented languages, Linda, C++-Linda, (C++).

Object-oriented programming techniques have become a vital part of modern software engineering. Most large new commercial software products are designed today using objects oriented principles along with supporting development environments and tools. Such methodology is particularly appealing for parallel computing, where there is great need for approaches capable of simplifying the programming task and producing high quality software more quickly. In this project we have carried out research that will lead to a new parallel object-oriented language based on C++. The new language, C++-Linda, is a novel combination of the most widely used object-oriented language and a successful environment for parallel computing that supports a virtual shared memory model for process interaction. This combination is an especially appropriate one because Linda's memory model is naturally object-oriented, enabling a seamless design that is completely consistent with object-oriented methodology. In this Phase I project, we have carried out research to understand the basic issues underlying parallel object-oriented languages, and we have created a preliminary design for C++-Linda. In a future Phase II project, we plan to develop a prototype implementation that will serve as a guide for eventual commercialization. Parallel computing, Programming languages, Object-oriented languages, Linda, C++-Linda, (C++).

Object-oriented programming techniques have become a vital part of modern software engineering. Most large new commercial software products are designed today using objects oriented principles along with supporting development environments and tools. Such methodology is particularly appealing for parallel computing, where there is great need for approaches capable of simplifying the programming task and producing high quality software more quickly. In this project we have carried out research that will lead to a new parallel object-oriented language based on C++. The new language, C++-Linda, is a novel combination of the most widely used object-oriented language and a successful environment for parallel computing that supports a virtual shared memory model for process interaction. This combination is an especially appropriate one because Linda's memory model is naturally object-oriented, enabling a seamless design that is completely consistent with object-oriented methodology. In this Phase I project, we have carried out research to understand the basic issues underlying parallel object-oriented languages, and we have created a preliminary design for C++-Linda. In a future Phase II project, we plan to develop a prototype implementation that will serve as a guide for eventual commercialization. Parallel computing, Programming languages, Object-oriented languages, Linda, C++-Linda, (C++).

CS 61A The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Instructor Brian Harvey Spring 2008 Introduction to programming and computer science. This course exposes students to techniques of abstraction at several levels: (a) within a programming language, using higher-order functions, manifest types, data-directed programming, and message-passing; (b) between programming languages, using functional and rule-based languages as examples. It also relates these techniques to the practical problems of implementation of languages and algorithms on a von Neumann machine. There are several significant programming projects, programmed in a dialect of the LISP language.

There is a perception amongst some of those learning computer programming that the principles of object-oriented programming (where behaviour is often encapsulated across multiple class files) can be difficult to grasp, especially when taught through a traditional, didactic "talk-and-chalk" method or in a lecture-based environment. We propose a non-traditional teaching method, developed for a government-funded teaching training project delivered by Queen's University, we call it "bigCode." In this scenario, learners are provided with many printed, poster-sized fragments of code (in this case either Java or C#). The learners sit on the floor in groups and assemble these fragments into the many classes which make-up an object-oriented program. Early trials indicate that "bigCode" is an effective method for teaching object-orientation. The requirement to physically organise the code fragments imitates closely the thought processes of a good software developer when developing object-oriented code. Furthermore, in addition to teaching the principles involved in object-orientation, "bigCode" is also an extremely useful technique for teaching learners the organisation and structure of individual classes in Java or C# (as well as the organisation of procedural code). The mechanics of organising fragments of code into complete, correct computer programs give the users first-hand practice of this important skill, and as a result they subsequently find it much easier to develop well-structured code on a computer. Yet, open questions remain. Is "bigCode" successful only because we have unknowingly targeted predominantly kinesthetic learners? Is "bigCode" also an effective teaching approach for other forms of learners, such as visual learners? How scalable is "bigCode": in its current form can it be used with large class sizes, or outside the classroom?

There is a perception amongst some of those learning computer programming that the principles of object-oriented programming (where behaviour is often encapsulated across multiple class files) can be difficult to grasp, especially when taught through a traditional, didactic "talk-and-chalk" method or in a lecture-based environment. We propose a non-traditional teaching method, developed for a government-funded teaching training project delivered by Queen's University, we call it "bigCode." In this scenario, learners are provided with many printed, poster-sized fragments of code (in this case either Java or C#). The learners sit on the floor in groups and assemble these fragments into the many classes which make-up an object-oriented program. Early trials indicate that "bigCode" is an effective method for teaching object-orientation. The requirement to physically organise the code fragments imitates closely the thought processes of a good software developer when developing object-oriented code. Furthermore, in addition to teaching the principles involved in object-orientation, "bigCode" is also an extremely useful technique for teaching learners the organisation and structure of individual classes in Java or C# (as well as the organisation of procedural code). The mechanics of organising fragments of code into complete, correct computer programs give the users first-hand practice of this important skill, and as a result they subsequently find it much easier to develop well-structured code on a computer. Yet, open questions remain. Is "bigCode" successful only because we have unknowingly targeted predominantly kinesthetic learners? Is "bigCode" also an effective teaching approach for other forms of learners, such as visual learners? How scalable is "bigCode": in its current form can it be used with large class sizes, or outside the classroom?

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

This talk presents a component glue code language called SuperGlue. Components in programs with interactive processing requirements, such as user interface programs, often interact by continuously viewing each others' volatile state. These kinds of interactions are difficult to express in most programming languages because the event handling code that reacts to changes in state is very repetitive. SuperGlue eliminates this repetitive glue code with time-varying value abstractions known as signals, which encapsulate event handling details through a standardized interface for communicating volatile state. The way signals are connected between components is analogous to how methods undergo virtual dispatch in object-oriented languages: programmers write rules that specify how an object's signals are connected according to its type and how it is connected to other objects. With this programming model, complicated component interactions can be concisely expressed in SuperGlue code. For example, the implementation of an email client in SuperGlue is substantially less complicated than a comparable implementation in Java. This talk will motivate and describe SuperGlue through examples, demonstrations of a prototype implementation, and a comparison-based evaluation with conventional programming languages. ©2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

A unit test is a method for verifying the accuracy and the proper functioning of a portion of a program. This work consists to study the relation and the approaches to test Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) programs and to propose a metamodel that enables the programmer to write the tests while writing the source code to be tested by exploiting the key features of OOP programming languages such as inheritance, polymorphism, etc.

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

Includes bibliographical references and index

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. borland :: turbo pascal :: Turbo Pascal Version 5.5 Object-Oriented Programming Guide 1989

From the bitsavers.org collection, a scanned-in computer-related document. borland :: turbo pascal :: Turbo Pascal Version 5.5 Object-Oriented Programming Guide 1989

Tri 3 - 2015/2016

Tri 3 - 2015/2016

Object-Oriented Strategies, programming newsletter, Vol.2 No.2 1992

Object-Oriented Strategies, programming newsletter, Vol.2 No.2 1992

Object-Oriented Strategies, programming newsletter, Vol.2 No.2 1992