Introduction / Context:
Analogies help solidify object-oriented terminology. In OOP, classes define the structure and behavior (the “blueprint”), while objects are concrete instances created from that blueprint. Mapping this vocabulary correctly ensures clear communication and accurate mental models when designing systems.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- A “widget” is a hypothetical product.
- A “blueprint” defines how to build a widget.
- In OOP, a class defines how to build objects (instances).
Concept / Approach:
- Blueprint → specification; Widget → built instance.
- Class → specification; Object → instantiated entity.
- Therefore, class maps to blueprint, and object maps to widget.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Identify roles: blueprint (definition) vs widget (instance).Match to OOP: class (definition) vs object (instance).Hence the analogy: blueprint : widget :: class : object.
Verification / Alternative check:
Consider multiple objects (many widgets) from one class (single blueprint), reinforcing the analogy.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Member function/operator: Behaviors within a class, not the class itself.
- Data item: A field within an object, not the class blueprint.
- None of the above: Incorrect because “a class” fits perfectly.
Common Pitfalls:
- Reversing the analogy—treating an object as the blueprint.
- Confusing classes (types) with modules or namespaces.
Final Answer:
a class
Discussion & Comments