Talk:Abstraction (computer science)

Old topics
I think the current page misses the whole point. Making some minor adjustments to correct worst mistakes.

The words from the article could be divorced from the OOP POV thus, simply making it a programming language statement, as if a programmer were thinking about working on a project.

In computer science, abstraction is the analog of abstraction in mathematics. The mathematical technique of abstraction begins with mathematical definitions; this has the fortunate effect of finessing some of the vexing philosophical issues of abstraction.

Abstraction allows programmers to think simply about a problem, by deferring unimportant detail for later, while still allowing thought about more important goals, in stages of thinking, not all-at-once. For example, in both computing and in mathematics, numbers are concepts in the programming languages, as founded in mathematics. Implementation details depend on the hardware and software, but this is not a restriction because the computing concept of number is still based on the mathematical concept.

During software development, the client typically understands the application, and can understand the use of the work. The semantics of the application dictate the structure of the implementation.

For example, Linda abstracts the concepts of server and shared data-space to facilitate distributed programming; that is, the semantics of distributed processing were implemented in Linda. In Java, abstraction takes place at the level of extended data types. Such types are called classes, and objects are instances of said class. The concept of abstraction is itself a declarative statement in programming languages such as C++ or Java, using the keywords virtual or abstract, respectively, to decorate the class name. After such a declaration, it is the responsibility of the programmer to implement a class to instantiate the object of the declaration. Or, if the specification language is UML, for example, the abstract classes are simply left abstract during the architecture and specification phase of the project.

Thus, in the architecture stage, one could define an abstract data type called lookup table, where keys are uniquely associated with values, and values may be retrieved by specifying their corresponding keys. Such a lookup table may be implemented in various ways: as a hash table, a binary search tree, or even a simple linear list (which is actually quite efficient for small data sets). As far as client code is concerned, the abstract properties of the type are the same in each case.

The interface between components of an implementation forms a contract on agreed behaviour between components of the application. This interface can be sybmbolized in various ways, such as Ward Cunningham's CRC cards.

Some other languages that implement data abstraction include Ada and Modula-2.

[PROPOSE moving this back to the OOP page]


 * The above paragraphs provide a substantially better introduction to abstraction than what is presently shown. If no one objects I will be making a **HUGE** change by replacing the current introduction in its entirety with this one.  I plan to do this next time I visit this page. Vonkje (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What proposal exactly are you talking about? Pcap ping  07:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstraction in object oriented programming
Object-oriented languages are commonly claimed to offer data abstraction; however, the inheritance concept tends to put information in the interface that more properly belongs in the implementation; thus, changes to such information ends up impacting client code, leading directly to the fragile base class problem.

[propose a REPLACE of the Animals code with some Object diagram]
 * I agree with the replace suggestion. IMO many of the computer science articles related to object-orientation do this, they jump into psuedocode or even worse C++ code examples that get into all kinds of hairy etail not all that relevant to the article but they never bother to explain the basic idea. I'm pretty technical, I still program in Java and I've been programming since the 70's and I usually find those examples too detailed and hard to follow. If they are hard for met o follow than they are hard for the vast majority of people who come to these pages. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Layers or Levels of Abstraction
Shouldn't the heading title "Layers of Abtraction" really be "Levels of Abstraction"? If no one objects, I will change it. Montalvo 01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The database layers mentioned in the text are not layers of abstraction! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.36.28 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rationale
What does the use of the word "others" mean in the first sentence? - KitchM (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea. There were/are a bunch silly vague statements in this article. Feel free to fix them. I've fixed some in the lead (see next talk section), but undoubtedly there are more in the body, as you discovered. Pcap ping  19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Better Definition
There should be found a better definition than that which is given. It lacks the clarity and simplicity necessary to explain it to the layperson.

One might start with these other definitions: 1. an abstracting or being abstracted; removal 2. formation of an idea, as of the qualities or properties of a thing, by mental separation from particular instances or material objects 3. an idea so formed, or a word or term for it “honesty” and “whiteness” are abstractions 4. an unrealistic or impractical notion

And for "abstract": 1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. 3. Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems. 4. Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.

And yet computing is all about very exacting detail that is applied, practical and concrete.

Perhaps the word "abstraction" within the field of computing may be better defined within the ideas of simple ones and zeros, as well as within the idea of grouping efforts together by finding commonality, and thereby reaching a common point of reference for the definition.

Further, the introduction of the concept should include the reasoning behind using it in the first place within this particular application. - KitchM (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The intro to this article was even more impenetrable a couple of weeks ago. I've done a little work on it (before you posted the above), which covered some of your suggestions, e.g. finding commonality. Feel free to improve the presentation further. Pcap ping  18:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstraction is much closer related to Polymorphism than what the article makes to believe. As a matter of fact, refactoring towards Polymorphism, quite often would mean the act of doing Abstraction. The article about Polymorphism is much more cleaner, and should be used as the base article. I also do not think there is a need of trying to list all the implementing concepts on a per language basis. They belong maybe on a separate article on how a specific language implements the OOP model as a whole. There is too much too read right now. Jdesmet (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that the scope of this article is currently far too large. I agree with Jdsmet above that listing all of the ways that abstraction can be done is not the proper to build this article as a whole. Perhaps most references to specific ways should be moved to their own articles, and either placed in additional reading, or otherwise have a catagory created that this article simply references to. This article currently depends on defining abstraction by the specific ways that abstraction is done, rather than the core concepts behind it. TheHottestPotato (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the second sentence is correct, it says I get it has a reference and I am nobody, but it still strikes me as a subjective point of view since details of very large importance varies with people. If you ask what is important about an object you will get different answers depending on the use case that object is into. So I would say you abstract a real world object into an abstract one to focus your attention on the behaviors and states you are interested in. /end rant Simbioz (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This sentence does not make much sense to me: Simbioz (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Starting revisions now
This article is currently listed as Start quality while also being of Top' importance. It is for this reason that I will be taking on revisions.


 * I am currently in the process of gathering references. There seems to be literature on treating abstraction as a concept itself, so I'll read those and get back here and edit it.


 * Abstraction is a very fishy term -- there exist different camps (e.g. OOP + functional/type-theorist) which use abstraction differently. For example, the lambda calculus makes use of their abstraction rule to produce terms in the recursive definition of the lambda calculus. Abstraction is also cited as a concept often talked about by the OOP camp.

- Atasato (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Talking about "abstraction" like it has some special definition throughout computer science is a bad trend in software that misleads new developers. Anyone who finds this page before the math-related one is cursed. Zabublex (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Data abstraction
Men 2405:201:C001:5B75:A1A1:1938:AB2A:572B (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)