As you may have guessed from the question - I am right at the beginning of the Obj-C journey.
I'm hoping that someone out there knows of some diagrams that depict the relationship between classes, objects and methods - and that they're willing to share.
The problem I'm having is that just looking at code in a textbook doesn't completely explain it - for me at least.
Thanks for reading!
Regards,
Spencer.
No diagrams, but this is the tutorial I wish I'd read before I started:
http://www.cocoadevcentral.com/d/learn_objectivec/
Simple English, all the basic concepts.
Classes are just like classes in any language. They are descriptions.
Objects are like nouns. They are an instance of a class. That is, if you had a description of a generic book (the class) and you made a thesaurus based on that description, the thesaurus would be the object.
Methods are more or less functions. If the objects are nouns, then the messages are verbs.
[ScienceBook getTableOfContents]; //this would like return a table of contents.
Here, the object ScienceBook is being sent a getTableOfContents message (method). So now, the science book would theoretically find, format and return the table of contents to whom ever sent the message.
To some extent, diagrams may not be that helpful to answer the questions you present.
It may help to think of things like this:
A "class" provides the prototype or definition for some thing. For example, a "Person" or a "Car". A common synonym for "class" is "type".
An "object" is a concrete example or instance of a class. For example, you are an instance of "Person", and your car is an instance of "Car".
A "method" is a behavior, action or property of a class. However, a method is normally only meaningful in the context of an object. "Person" -> "Eat" is not meaningful, but "you" -> "Eat" is.
These are fundamental Object-Oriented concepts that are not specific to Objective-C. If you are interested in a general overview that is language-agnostic, I recommend "Object Thinking" by David West. Even though it's from Microsoft Press, it covers the concepts rather than any specific language.
I come from a fairly strong C++ background, but I can definitely remember when I started, I had a hard time grasping at the concept until I found a way to associate it with physical objects.
The word class and object you can use almost interchangeably. Think of an object as a container, like a bucket. The word bucket would be your "class". It is the name you give to the type of object you have.
A bucket has a certain purpose...to carry something. It might be water...or perhaps sand. So perhaps you want to fill the bucket. This would be something you do to the bucket, so in objective-c, this would be your method. You might write something like:
- (void) fillWith:(elementType)something;
So in this case, "something" might be something that represents and object you wish to fill your bucket with.
Your class might look like the following:
typedef enum items {
CRAYONS,
MARKERS,
SAND,
WATER } elementType;
#class Bucket {
elementType item;
}
- (void) fillWith:(elementType)something;
#end
Here's one link to some objective-c samples. Also try the apple development center.
If you're after information on Object Orientated Programming (ie the meaning of classes, objects, methods etc) then I'd advise against Objective-C. Objective-C on the Mac relies heavily on the Cocoa framework. The Cocoa framework is vast and performs a lot of 'magic' which will make it harder to understand the fundamentals of OOP.
An easier place to start would be a language used for web development. It's easier to get to the nuts and bolts of OOP with these languages.
Related
Do you know programming languages where changing the class of an object at runtime is allowed (supported)?
Please give a short example regarding the syntax. Give a use case, if you know any. Examples involving duck typing are welcome as well, so do not shy away from mentioning these languages.
Update: I figured out that Smalltalk has changeClassTo and become. CLOS can do change-class. I found a paper suggesting to use these mechanisms to implement 'husk objects' that are referenced at runtime, but only constructed from some persistence when actually accessed, providing some nifty lazy loading of related objects.
I assume, you mean the following:
You have an object of class A. But you would like to treat it as an object of class B.
There are some constructions possible:
If B is a subclass of A you can cast the object to B (but it should be created as B else you have unexpected (and hopefully unwanted) results).
In some languages you can cast anything to anything. If you know what you are doing, this is great, else prepare for several holes in your foot.
You mention ducktyping. I have no practical experience with it. But As far as I know, duck typing is something like this: "I need an object that support methods X, Y and Z." In that case you don't care about the class. You just want it to quack, swim and walk at your command.
Give a usecase
??? I'd expect you to ask for a solution on a specific use case.
Changing type of an object? I think "No."
But if you like to change part of an objects capabilities or behaviours have a look at loosely coupling!
For example your class holds a member of type File_Saver. There's a public setter accepting any instance of File_Saver and you can inject File_Saver_XML, File_Saver_PDF, ...
It's no common way, but any processing inside a class can be done by 1-n loosely coupled handlers, which you can exchange from outside.
Melt down to your question: You need a wrapper + a setter. :-)
Coming back to the case after some time, I've come to the conclusion that you want duck typing if you feel the need of changing an objects class.
I recently read that getters/setters are evil and I have to say it makes sense, yet when I started learning OOP one of the first things I learned was "Encapsulate your fields" so I learned to create class give it some fields, create getters, setters for them and create constructor where I initialize these fields. And every time some other class needs to manipulate this object (or for instance display it) I pass it the object and it manipulate it using getters/setters. I can see problems with this approach.
But how to do it right? For instance displaying/rendering object that is "data" class - let's say Person, that has name and date of birth. Should the class have method for displaying the object where some Renderer would be passed as an argument? Wouldn't that violate principle that class should have only one purpose (in this case store state) so it should not care about presentation of this object.
Can you suggest some good resources where best practices in OOP design are presented? I'm planning to start a project in my spare time and I want it to be my learning project in correct OOP design..
Allen Holub made a big splash with "Why getter and setter methods are evil" back in 2003.
It's great that you've found and read the article. I admire anybody who's learning and thinking critically about what they're doing.
But take Mr. Holub with a grain of salt.
This is one view that got a lot of attention for its extreme position and the use of the word "evil", but it hasn't set the world on fire or been generally accepted as dogma.
Look at C#: they actually added syntactic sugar to the language to make get/set operations easier to write. Either this confirms someone's view of Microsoft as an evil empire or contradicts Mr. Holub's statement.
The fact is that people write objects so that clients can manipulate state. It doesn't mean that every object written that way is wrong, evil, or unworkable.
The extreme view is not practical.
"Encapsulate your fields" so I learned to create class give it some fields, create getters, setters
Python folks do not do this. Yet, they are still doing OO programming. Clearly, fussy getters and setters aren't essential.
They're common, because of limitations in C++ and Java. But they don't seem to be essential.
Python folks use properties sometimes to create a getter and setter functions that look like a simple attribute.
The point is that "Encapsulation" is a Design strategy. It has little or nothing to do with the implementation. You can have all public attributes, and still a nicely encapsulated design.
Also note that many people worry about "someone else" who "violates" the design by directly accessing attributes. I suppose this could happen, but then the class would stop working correctly.
In C++ (and Java) where you cannot see the source, it can be hard to understand the interface, so you need lots of hints. private methods, explicit getters and setters, etc.
In Python, where you can see all the source, it's trivial to understand the interface. We don't need to provide so many hints. As we say "Use the source, Luke" and "We're all adults here." We're all able to see the source, we don't need to be fussy about piling on getters and setters to provide yet more hints as to how the API works.
For instance displaying/rendering object that is "data" class - let's say Person, that has name and date of birth. Should the class have method for displaying the object where some Renderer would be passed as an argument?
Good idea.
Wouldn't that violate principle that class should have only one purpose (in this case store state) so it should not care about presentation of this object.
That's why the Render object is separate. Your design is quite nice.
No reason why a Person object can't call a general-purpose renderer and still have a narrow set of responsibilities. After all the Person object is responsible for the attributes, and passing those attributes to a Renderer is well within it's responsibilities.
If it's truly a problem (and it can be in some applications), you can introduce Helper classes. So the PersonRenderer class does Rendering of Person data. That way a change to Person also requires changes to PersonRenderer -- and nothing else. This is the Data Access Object design pattern.
Some folks will make the Render an internal class, contained within Person, so it's Person.PersonRenderer to enforce some more serious containment.
If you have getters and setters, you don't have encapsulation. And they are not necessary. Consider the std::string class. This has quite a complicated internal representation, yet has no getters or setters, and only one element of the representation is (probably) exposed simply by returning its value (i.e. size()). That's the kind of thing you should be aiming for.
The basic concept of why they are considered to be evil is, that a class/object should export function and not state. The state of an object is made of its members. Getters and Setters let external users read/modify the state of an object without using any function.
Hence the idea, that except for DataTransferObjects for which you might have Getters and a constructor for setting the state, the members of an objects should only be modified by calling a functionality of an object.
Why do you think getters are evil? See a post with answers proving the opposite:
Purpose of private members in a class
IMHO it contains a lot of what can rightfully be called "OOP best practices".
Update: OK, reading the article you are referring to, I understand more clearly what the issue is. And it's a whole different story from what the provocative title of the article suggests. I haven't yet read the full article, but AFAIU the basic point is that one should not unnecessarily publish class fields via mindlessly added (or generated) getters and setters. And with this point I fully agree.
By designing carefully and focusing on what you must do rather than how
you'll do it, you eliminate the vast majority of getter/setter methods in
your program. Don't ask for the information you need to do the work;
ask the object that has the information to do the work for you.
So far so good. However, I don't agree that providing a getter like this
int getSomeField();
inherently compromises your class design. Well it does, if you haven't designed your class interface well. Then, of course, it might happen that you realize too late that the field should be a long rather than an int, and changing it would break 1000 places in client code. IMHO in such case the designer is to blame, not the poor getter.
In some languages, like C++, there's the concept of friend. Using this concept you can make implementation details of a class visible to only a subset of other classes (or even functions). When you use Get/Set indiscriminately you give everyone access to everything.
When used sparingly friend is an excellent way of increasing encapsulation.
Assume you have many entity classes in your designs, and suppose they have a base class like Data. Adding different getter and setter methods for concrete implementations will pollute the client code that uses these entities like lots of dynamic_casts, to call required getter and setter methods.
Therefore, getter and setter methods may remain where they are, but you should protected client code. My recommendation would be to apply Visitor pattern or data collector for these cases.
In other words, ask yourself why do I need these accessor methods, how do I manipulate these entities? And then apply these manipulations in Visitor classes to keep client code clean, also extend the functionality of entity classes without polluting their code.
In the following paper concerning endotesting you'll find a pattern to avoid getters (in some circumstances) using what the author calls 'smart handlers'. It has a lot in common with how Holub approaches avoiding some getters.
http://www.mockobjects.com/files/endotesting.pdf
Anything that is public is part of the API of the class. Changing these parts may break other stuff, relying on that. A public field, that is not only connected with an API, but with internal representation, can be risky. Example: You save data in a field as an array. This array is public, so the data can be changed from other classes. Later you decide to switch to a generic List. Code that use this field as an array is broken.
So I know a bit of C, trying to jump into ObjC for Max apps. Trying to figure out the terms and just needed a guru to humor me.
So an object could be thought of as a house that holds operations and data together.
But there may be many different objects of the same kind, called an instance. This could be thought of as a trailer park (manufactured home community) with a bunch of object homes. Not sure how to give an example of a type however.
Following same example, the methods would be the way the data in the house is manipulated?
Trying to figure these definitions out in a very simple example for my brain :)
It sounds more like you need some education on Object Oriented Programming in general rather than Objective-C specifically. Do some googling for general OOP references. Here's some basics referring to your specific question:
Object: A general term for a combination of data and related operations
Class: A specific definition of an object, i.e. NSController
Instance: A specific object created from a Class definition
So, I could have an object Controller1, that is an instance of the NSController class. This could be referred to as an "NSController object" or an instance of "NSController".
Stop using these analogies, just start playing around with tutorials and the code, you will get the hang of what everything does in no time.
In my words I would call methods a collective of instructions that you can call on with the given method name.
But really, just start writing code, the rest will come :) (no copy pasting!!)
What you're asking has little to do with Objective-C specifically, and everything to do with Object-Oriented Programming. Read up on that before diving into the new language!
I know this topic is quite old, but I thought I'd try and help out in case anyone is coming here looking for answers.
Object
Blueprint for a house. It has the plans for building a house, and it will even supply the contractors to build the house for you, but it is not the house.
Instance
This is a house. It also keeps track of all of the characteristics of the house, and as a result it can be introspective. IE: You can ask the house how many rooms it has, what its dimensions are &etc.
Method
Most every object will define methods. Methods do stuff. Following the house analogy, a method would be the mechanism that would grab the dimensions for you and print them out, or it could be something that would modify the state of the house. IE: call a plumber to fix a leaky pipe on the house.
Hi I'm writing this question because I'm a newbie in ObjC and a lot of doubts came to my mind when trying to make my fist training app. The thing is that I have a strong background in C, I've been programming in Java for the last year and I've done some collage stuff with Smalltalk (I mencione this because those are my programming references and those are the languages I'm comparing ObjC with).
The first problem I've encountered is that I don't know where to draw a line between ObjC and C, for example when dealing with math operations, Should I use math.h or there is a more "object-way" like you can do in Smalltalk (aNumber raisedTo: 3) ? How does a person with no background at all in C learns ObjC?.
Another thing that I couldn't find was a collection's protocol (I've looked over the Foundation Framework documentation given by Apple). Because I want to implement an expresion tree class and I wanna know if there are methods that all collections should implement (like in Smalltalk or Java) or I gotta check by hand every collection and see if there is a cool method that my new collection should have.
I don't know if I'm being too stupid or I'm searching for features that the language/framework doesn't have. I want to program in ObjC with the ObjC style not thinking in C, Java or Smalltalk.
Sorry if the question was too long.
Absolutely use <math.h>. You don't way to pay message sending overhead for functions that run in 30 cycles. Even function call overhead seems pretty steep at that point.
More generally, use as much or as little of C-style as you want to. I've seen Objective-C that was nothing but a couple C modules glued together with objective C messages, and I've seen Objective-C that essentially zero lines of code without the square brackets. I've seen beautiful, effective code written both ways. Good code is good code, however you write it.
In general, you'll use C features for numerical calculations. You'll generally use objects for most other things. The reason for this is that objects are way heavier than a simple scalar — there's just no benefit to it. Why would you ever write [[NSNumber numberWithInteger:1] numberByAddingNumber:[NSNumber numberWithInteger:2]] when you can just write 1+2? It's not only painful to read, it's far slower and it doesn't gain you anything.
On the other hand, Cocoa has rich object libraries for strings, arrays, networking and many other areas, and using those is a big win.
Knowing what's there — and thus what the easiest way to do something is — is just a matter of learning. If you think something should be there and you can't find it, you can ask either here or on Apple's Cocoa-Dev mailing list.
As for a collection protocol — there really isn't one. The closest thing to it is the NSFastEnumeration protocol, which defines precisely one method: countByEnumeratingWithState:objects:count:. This lets you use the for (id someObject in someCollection) syntax to enumerate the objects in a collection. Otherwise, all the collections define their own independent interfaces.
The first problem I've encountered is that I don't know where to draw a line between ObjC and C.
My rule is to use C wherever it makes sense to you. Objective-C has the benefit of letting you choose when to be procedural and when to be object-oriented. Go with what fits best with the code you're writing.
Another thing that I couldn't find was a collection's protocol [...] I want to implement an expresion tree class and I wanna know if there are methods that all collections should implement (like in Java) or I gotta check by hand every collection and see if there is a method that my collection should have.
Unlike Java, Objective-C does not have a master protocol for collections like the java.util.Collection interface. Also, there aren't a proliferation of specific container implementations as in Java. However, that gives you the freedom to implement a collection in a way that makes sense for your code.
For building a tree-like structure, you might take a look at NSTreeNode to see if it might be useful to leverage. (It may be more than you're need or want, but might be worth a shot.)
As far as rolling your own collection, I've learned a lot while creating CHDataStructures.framework, and you're welcome to use whatever you like from that code, or just look at my attempts at creating Cocoa-like structures, designed to complement the Foundation collections and operate similarly. Good luck!
Try to use each language for what it's good at. IMHO, this would include Obj-C objects but C-like code implementing methods. So use math.h and concise C code to implement logic, but don't be shy about using Obj-C classes to organize your larger blocks of functionality into something that makes sense.
Also, try to interact with the frameworks using their style so you're not running upstream.
As has been mentioned, there’s no real protocol for abstract collection classes (aside from the NSFastEnumeration protocol which provides the for(id item in collection) syntax when implemented), but there are conventions to follow.
Apple’s Introduction to Coding Guidelines for Cocoa covers some of this, and there is in fact a section on naming collection methods which covers the general cases (though note that generic container classes such as NSArray use the term “Object” as opposed to “Element” listed in the examples there – i.e. addObject:, removeObject:, and so on).
Following the patterns listed here (among others) is actually crucial when you want your classes to be KVC-compliant, which allows other users to observe changes in your object’s properties.
This caught my attention last night.
On the latest ALT.NET Podcast Scott Bellware discusses how as opposed to Ruby, languages like C#, Java et al. are not truly object oriented rather opting for the phrase "class-oriented". They talk about this distinction in very vague terms without going into much detail or discussing the pros and cons much.
What is the real difference here and how much does it matter? What are other languages then are "object-oriented"? It sounded pretty interesting but I don't want to have to learn Ruby just to know what if anything I am missing.
Update
After reading some of the answers below it seems like people generally agree that the reference is to duck-typing. What I'm not sure I understand still though is the claim that this ultimately changes all that much. Especially if you are already doing proper TDD with loose coupling etc. Can someone show me an example of a specific thing I could do with Ruby that I cannot do with C# and that exemplifies this different OOP approach?
In an object-oriented language, objects are defined by defining objects rather than classes, although classes can provide some useful templates for specific, cookie-cutter definitions of a given abstraction. In a class-oriented language, like C# for example, objects must be defined by classes, and these templates are usually canned and packaged and made immutable before runtime. This arbitrary constraint that objects must be defined before runtime and that the definitions of objects are immutable is not an object-oriented concept; it's class oriented.
The duck typing comments here are more attributing to the fact that Ruby and Python are more dynamic than C#. It doesn't really have anything to do with it's OO Nature.
What (I think) Bellware meant by that is that in Ruby, everything is an object. Even a class. A class definition is an instance of an object. As such, you can add/change/remove behavior to it at runtime.
Another good example is that NULL is an object as well. In ruby, everything is LITERALLY an object. Having such deep OO in it's entire being allows for some fun meta-programming techniques such as method_missing.
IMO, it's really overly defining "object-oriented", but what they are referring to is that Ruby, unlike C#, C++, Java, et al, does not make use of defining a class -- you really only ever work directly with objects. Conversely, in C# for example, you define classes that you then must instantiate into object by way of the new keyword. The key point being you must declare a class in C# or describe it. Additionally, in Ruby, everything -- even numbers, for example -- is an object. In contrast, C# still retains the concept of an object type and a value type. This in fact, I think illustrates the point they make about C# and other similar languages -- object type and value type imply a type system, meaning you have an entire system of describing types as opposed to just working with objects.
Conceptually, I think OO design is what provides the abstraction for use to deal complexity in software systems these days. The language is a tool use to implement an OO design -- some make it more natural than others. I would still argue that from a more common and broader definition, C# and the others are still object-oriented languages.
There are three pillars of OOP
Encapsulation
Inheritance
Polymorphism
If a language can do those three things it is a OOP language.
I am pretty sure the argument of language X does OOP better than language A will go on forever.
OO is sometimes defined as message oriented. The idea is that a method call (or property access) is really a message sent to another object. How the recieveing object handles the message is completely encapsulated. Often the message corresponds to a method which is then executed, but that is just an implementation detail. You can for example create a catch-all handler which is executed regardless of the method name in the message.
Static OO like in C# does not have this kind of encapsulation. A massage has to correspond to an existing method or property, otherwise the compiler will complain. Dynamic languages like Smalltalk, Ruby or Python does however support "message-based" OO.
So in this sense C# and other statically typed OO languages are not true OO, sine thay lack "true" encapsulation.
Update: Its the new wave.. which suggest everything that we've been doing till now is passe.. Seems to be propping up quite a bit in podcasts and books.. Maybe this is what you heard.
Till now we've been concerned with static classes and not unleashed the power of object oriented development. We've been doing 'class based dev.' Classes are fixed/static templates to create objects. All objects of a class are created equal.
e.g. Just to illustrate what I've been babbling about... let me borrow a Ruby code snippet from PragProg screencast I just had the privilege of watching.
'Prototype based development' blurs the line between objects and classes.. there is no difference.
animal = Object.new # create a new instance of base Object
def animal.number_of_feet=(feet) # adding new methods to an Object instance. What?
#number_of_feet = feet
end
def animal.number_of_feet
#number_of_feet
end
cat = animal.clone #inherits 'number_of_feet' behavior from animal
cat.number_of_feet = 4
felix = cat.clone #inherits state of '4' and behavior from cat
puts felix.number_of_feet # outputs 4
The idea being its a more powerful way to inherit state and behavior than traditional class based inheritance. It gives you more flexibility and control in certain "special" scenarios (that I've yet to fathom). This allows things like Mix-ins (re using behavior without class inheritance)..
By challenging the basic primitives of how we think about problems, 'true OOP' is like 'the Matrix' in a way... You keep going WTF in a loop. Like this one.. where the base class of Container can be either an Array or a Hash based on which side of 0.5 the random number generated is.
class Container < (rand < 0.5 ? Array : Hash)
end
Ruby, javascript and the new brigade seem to be the ones pioneering this. I'm still out on this one... reading up and trying to make sense of this new phenomenon. Seems to be powerful.. too powerful.. Useful? I need my eyes opened a bit more. Interesting times.. these.
I've only listened to the first 6-7 minutes of the podcast that sparked your question. If their intent is to say that C# isn't a purely object-oriented language, that's actually correct. Everything in C# isn't an object (at least the primitives aren't, though boxing creates an object containing the same value). In Ruby, everything is an object. Daren and Ben seem to have covered all the bases in their discussion of "duck-typing", so I won't repeat it.
Whether or not this difference (everything an object versus everything not an object) is material/significant is a question I can't readily answer because I don't have sufficient depth in Ruby to compare it to C#. Those of you who on here who know Smalltalk (I don't, though I wish I did) have probably been looking at the Ruby movement with some amusement since it was the first pure OO language 30 years ago.
Maybe they are alluding to the difference between duck typing and class hierarchies?
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, just pretend it's a duck and kick it.
In C#, Java etc. the compiler fusses a lot about: Are you allowed to do this operation on that object?
Object Oriented vs. Class Oriented could therefore mean: Does the language worry about objects or classes?
For instance: In Python, to implement an iterable object, you only need to supply a method __iter__() that returns an object that has a method named next(). That's all there is to it: No interface implementation (there is no such thing). No subclassing. Just talking like a duck / iterator.
EDIT: This post was upvoted while I rewrote everything. Sorry, won't ever do that again. The original content included advice to learn as many languages as possible and to nary worry about what the language doctors think / say about a language.
That was an abstract-podcast indeed!
But I see what they're getting at - they just dazzled by Ruby Sparkle. Ruby allows you to do things that C-based and Java programmers wouldn't even think of + combinations of those things let you achieve undreamt of possibilities.
Adding new methods to a built-in String class coz you feel like it, passing around unnamed blocks of code for others to execute, mixins... Conventional folks are not used to objects changing too far from the class template.
Its a whole new world out there for sure..
As for the C# guys not being OO enough... dont take it to heart.. Just take it as the stuff you speak when you are flabbergasted for words. Ruby does that to most people.
If I had to recommend one language for people to learn in the current decade.. it would be Ruby. I'm glad I did.. Although some people may claim Python. But its like my opinion.. man! :D
I don't think this is specifically about duck typing. For instance C# supports limited duck-typing already - an example would be that you can use foreach on any class that implements MoveNext and Current.
The concept of duck-typing is compatible with statically typed languages like Java and C#, it's basically an extension of reflection.
This is really the case of static vs dynamic typing. Both are proper-OO, in as much as there is such a thing. Outside of academia it's really not worth debating.
Rubbish code can be written in either. Great code can be written in either. There's absolutely nothing functional that one model can do that the other can't.
The real difference is in the nature of the coding done. Static types reduce freedom, but the advantage is that everyone knows what they're dealing with. The opportunity to change instances on the fly is very powerful, but the cost is that it becomes hard to know what you're deaing with.
For instance for Java or C# intellisense is easy - the IDE can quickly produce a drop list of possibilities. For Javascript or Ruby this becomes a lot harder.
For certain things, for instance producing an API that someone else will code with, there is a real advantage in static typing. For others, for instance rapidly producing prototypes, the advantage goes to dynamic.
It's worth having an understanding of both in your skills toolbox, but nowhere near as important as understanding the one you already use in real depth.
Object Oriented is a concept. This concept is based upon certain ideas. The technical names of these ideas (actually rather principles that evolved over the time and have not been there from the first hour) have already been given above, I'm not going to repeat them. I'm rather explaining this as simple and non-technical as I can.
The idea of OO programming is that there are objects. Objects are small independent entities. These entities may have embedded information or they may not. If they have such information, only the entity itself can access it or change it. The entities communicate with each other by sending messages between each other. Compare this to human beings. Human beings are independent entities, having internal data stored in their brain and the interact with each other by communicating (e.g. talking to each other). If you need knowledge from someone's else brain, you cannot directly access it, you must ask him a question and he may answer that to you, telling you what you wanted to know.
And that's basically it. This is real idea behind OO programming. Writing these entities, define the communication between them and have them interact together to form an application. This concept is not bound to any language. It's just a concept and if you write your code in C#, Java, or Ruby, that is not important. With some extra work this concept can even be done in pure C, even though it is a functional language but it offers everything you need for the concept.
Different languages have now adopted this concept of OO programming and of course the concepts are not always equal. Some languages allow what other languages forbid, for example. Now one of the concepts that involved is the concept of classes. Some languages have classes, some don't. A class is a blueprint how an object looks like. It defines the internal data storage of an object, it defines the messages an object can understand and if there is inheritance (which is not mandatory for OO programming!), classes also defines from which other class (or classes if multiple inheritance is allowed) this class inherits (and which properties if selective inheritance exists). Once you created such a blueprint you can now generate an unlimited amount of objects build according to this blueprint.
There are OO languages that have no classes, though. How are objects then build? Well, usually dynamically. E.g. you can create a new blank object and then dynamically add internal structure like instance variables or methods (messages) to it. Or you can duplicate an already existing object, with all its properties and then modify it. Or possibly merge two objects into a new one. Unlike class based languages these languages are very dynamic, as you can generate objects dynamically during runtime in ways not even you the developer has thought about when starting writing the code.
Usually this dynamic has a price: The more dynamic a language is the more memory (RAM) objects will waste and the slower everything gets as program flow is extremely dynamically as well and it's hard for a compiler to generate effective code if it has no chance to predict code or data flow. JIT compilers can optimize some parts of that during runtime, once they know the program flow, however as these languages are so dynamically, program flow can change at any time, forcing the JIT to throw away all compilation results and re-compile the same code over and over again.
But this is a tiny implementation detail - it has nothing to do with the basic OO principle. It is nowhere said that objects need to be dynamic or must be alterable during runtime. The Wikipedia says it pretty well:
Programming techniques may include
features such as information hiding,
data abstraction, encapsulation,
modularity, polymorphism, and
inheritance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
They may or they may not. This is all not mandatory. Mandatory is only the presence of objects and that they must have ways to interact with each other (otherwise objects would be pretty useless if they cannot interact with each other).
You asked: "Can someone show me an example of a wonderous thing I could do with ruby that I cannot do with c# and that exemplifies this different oop approach?"
One good example is active record, the ORM built into rails. The model classes are dynamically built at runtime, based on the database schema.
This is really probably getting down to what these people see others doing in c# and java as opposed to c# and java supporting OOP. Most languages cane be used in different programming paradigms. For example, you can write procedural code in c# and scheme, and you can do functional-style programming in java. It is more about what you are trying to do and what the language supports.
I'll take a stab at this.
Python and Ruby are duck-typed. To generate any maintainable code in these languages, you pretty much have to use test driven development. As such, it is very important for a developer to easily inject dependencies into their code without having to create a giant supporting framework.
Successful dependency-injection depends upon on having a pretty good object model. The two are sort of two sides of the same coin. If you really understand how to use OOP, then you should by default create designs where dependencies can be easily injected.
Because dependency injection is easier in dynamically typed languages, the Ruby/Python developers feel like their language understands the lessons of OO much better than other statically typed counterparts.