[Tutor] Walking up

[Jeff Shannon]

Magnus Lycka wrote:

> At 10:58 2002-11-26 -0800, Jeff Shannon wrote:
> >You use the terms "parent" and "child", which are most often used to
> >describe a
> >class inheritance tree, but you're not using inheritance at all.
>
> Funny, I didn't think that way at all about the use of "parent"
> and "child". There's always a danger that people make different
> associations from the words we use...
> [...]
> In my experience, parent / child relationships typically describe some
> kind of control, or responsibility. "Every child is a kind of parent"
> is *not* a reasonable way of describing children. They often mimic their
> parents, but that's not the same thing...
> [...]

*ahem*  Good points, and the more that I think about it, the more that I realize
that you're correct about the most common usage.  I had a few other things on my
mind, too, while I was writing that.  Nevermind me.  :)


> Having read Jeff's mail, I feel that maybe it's best to avoid the use of
> the words parent and child completely. In computer technology, as in many
> other fields, we use a lot of analogies to describe the things that are
> unique for our world. This might make it easier to understand, but sometimes
> it misleads us, and suggests conclusions that we can't really draw...

TBH, I usually *do* avoid using the parent/child terminology, except (sometimes) in
describing windows in a GUI.  I agree that, while analogies can be very useful (and
even essential), they can also be misleading, and the parent/child analogy has lots
of potential to be confusing.

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International