System Design Differences

Understanding the Object Oriented Paradigm helps to understand what I have presented and will continue to develop in my monetary system design concept.

The paradigm shift is from a fundamentally and principally functional oriented system design approach to an object oriented system design approach.  Essentially it is a shift in design approach from understanding the problem domain in terms of what a thing does to the nature of the things involved in what is done.  A combination of approaches is certainly required.  Just like nouns and verbs are essential to the understanding of the meaning of a sentence. 

Perhaps I can explain it this way.  If I had to choose either nouns or verbs to convey and idea to you then I would choose nouns as the better tool and let you deduce the verbs of your choice to flesh out the idea.  If I used only verbs to attempt to convey an idea it would be more difficult, especially in a complex highly structured thought.

Complex highly structured thought is what we deal in more today with the assistance of computer tools to think that way.  Good old functional decomposition thinking, just like ancient Banksters used to design their system initially served the development of computer systems and languages.  As systems grew beyond simple ability to handle functions and into abilities to model object related systems, not so much on what the objects do but what their inherent characteristic relationships are there was a shift to Object Oriented Design.

In many cases, object oriented design has replaced, often in a revolutionary manner, older systems based primarily on functional decomposition of functional hierarchies.  Our Constitution is a good example.  It is based on a design statement of what the basic objects of the system are.  The function of the system is derived from the established relationships of the objects.  The founders knew what "things" were important to make the democratic republic work.  It remains up to us to fill in the functions dictated or permitted by those object thing relationships.

In contrast, the Ten Commandments was a functional design statement.  It specified what to do, or not do by specifying the verb functions up front.  Old School thinking but it was good enough then.  Some say that it is all that is good enough now.  That divides our society today between people that think somewhere along a continuum between action/function/verb  orientation and object/thing/noun orientation. 

Banksters created a monetary system using functional decomposition methodology.  That sounds like an obtuse statement.  What does it mean?  It means that historically, as far back in time as banking and money go, they created the system based on what money would do for them.  What function would it perform for them as it performed a function in exchange by doing some thing beneficial for someone else.  A functional trade in a conceptual object (money with a time value) to accommodate trade in real objects initially and increasingly conceptual objects over time.  Everything was based on the functional decomposition of the trade to benefit the banker.

The system design difference is between the Bankster functional designed system and what it has evolved in today and an object oriented design system which is the modern and most productive method of problem domain analysis, design and implementation.