> [...] An object is more than a map of 'name' to 'value or function'.
Ok, after that explanation I understand what you mean. I could argue that, for example, object construction and destruction semantics are not characteristics of an object itself but rather of a particular object system or "meta-object protocol" being used; or that it's almost impossible to talk about object destruction outside of particular language context, because it relies on many different language-level features to work. But that would be too much of a hair-splitting for me :)
On the other hand I could argue that a set of functions is enough to express every possible type of behaviour and that a set of values is enough to express any possible state. But this in turn depends on the definitions of "value" and "function", which are highly language specific.
So, after thinking about it for some time, I think I can agree that "behaviour and state" is the best (possible?) definition of those which avoid diving into any implementation details and language specific features.
I'm not entirely convinced that such a definition is very practical though. You probably won't need that level of generality until you decide to implement your own object system. It won't help you (I think?) in OO design or OOP inside of some particular object system.
But anyway, you're right in that your definition is the best one in the category of "general" and "minimal" definitions of what objects are.
Sorry for ad personam in my previous comment and thanks for the discussion, it was enjoyable :)
The practicality is a very personal thing. For me, it's helped me see that a wider variety of things match the definition. Realizing an Actor model, communicating processes, microservices or nodes in a storage model can all be seen as objects, and applying some object oriented modelling techniques to them, has been a very powerful tool for understanding them and building them.
This value is entirely personal to me, though.
No apologies necessary, it was absolutely fair to call me out on a bias on my end. You too thanks for the discussion :)
Ok, after that explanation I understand what you mean. I could argue that, for example, object construction and destruction semantics are not characteristics of an object itself but rather of a particular object system or "meta-object protocol" being used; or that it's almost impossible to talk about object destruction outside of particular language context, because it relies on many different language-level features to work. But that would be too much of a hair-splitting for me :)
On the other hand I could argue that a set of functions is enough to express every possible type of behaviour and that a set of values is enough to express any possible state. But this in turn depends on the definitions of "value" and "function", which are highly language specific.
So, after thinking about it for some time, I think I can agree that "behaviour and state" is the best (possible?) definition of those which avoid diving into any implementation details and language specific features.
I'm not entirely convinced that such a definition is very practical though. You probably won't need that level of generality until you decide to implement your own object system. It won't help you (I think?) in OO design or OOP inside of some particular object system.
But anyway, you're right in that your definition is the best one in the category of "general" and "minimal" definitions of what objects are.
Sorry for ad personam in my previous comment and thanks for the discussion, it was enjoyable :)