Hammer Of The Gods

Objects abound us. There are objects that move, objects that are fixed. Objects that reside within other objects and objects that contain other objects. Objects crawl, eat, defecate, breed and die on the surface of other objects. Objects revolve in systems around other massive objects. What about thoughts, concepts, feelings? What about light, gravity, water, the wind? We can consider these objects as well.
So everything is-an Object (reminds me of a very popular programming language). Of course the term object is just an extremely general way to classify things. Software design involves the discovery and classification of objects that reside within a domain, and the creation of objects that serve to frame and facilitate the domain objects.
Object-Oriented Design is a tool and as a tool it has a very specific function. There is an old cliche, "if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail". But everything is an object, therefore everything is-a nail, in this sense.
Certainly if we name an element in our domain or system, we are speaking of objects. A very powerful naming technique is the use of metaphor. Successful metaphors surround the geekosystem. We don't invent new words, we overload the ones we already have. Words like 'file', 'folder', 'menu', 'icon'. Objects, every one of them. We even overload verbs, for example, 'browse', 'click', 'surf'. One new verb that comes to mind is to 'google'. One 'googles' when at Google. Google is a service (metaphorically speaking), a service is an object.
'Naming' and the use of metaphor is a very important capability for software developers. I think we tend to underestimate the power of well-crafted names and metaphors. The word 'object', with regards to software development, is a great name. The term was coined in the 1960s and is still effective, relevant, and a source of mystery.
The power in the name 'object' comes from the abstract, vague and nebulous nature of the name. By under-specifying what an object is, by allowing the term 'object' to breath, we give 'objects' great capability. So lets go the whole nine-yards and say that everything is an object. Its true anyway.
Its important to be able to live in the abstract, but every now and again we need to touch concrete. The typical way to teach OO is to provide concrete examples and to provide simple tenets such as 'an object is data and the methods that work with the data'. Objects live along side electron-clouds and Heisenberg. Too much concrete - too much uncertainty. I think most of the break-throughs in OO came from the early pioneers (SmallTalkers) who didn't have rules and concrete. They just created. And speaking of clouds, kind of makes you wonder if Grady Booch was on to something with his form of OO design notation. At least he gave Heisenberg his due.