On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert <abarn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Have you even looked at a message-passing language? > > A Smalltalk "message" is a selector and a sequence of arguments. That's what > you send around. Newer dynamic-typed message-passing OO and actor languages > are basically the same as Smalltalk.
Yes, but you have to understand that Alan Kays came with strange ideas of some future computer-human symbiosis. So his language design and other similar attempts (like php) is rather skewed from that premise And also, despite name-dropping, I'm not trying to create anything like that idea of message-passing. I'm talking about something very simple, a basic and universal way for objects to communicate. >> With function or method syntax, you're telling the computer to >> "execute something", but that is not the right concepts for OOP. You >> want the objects to interact with each other and in a high-level >> language, the syntax should assist with that. > > And you have to tell the object _how_ to interact with each other. This is a different paradigm that what I'm talking about. In the OOP of my world, Objects already embody the intelligence of how they are going to interact with the outside world, because I put them there. > Even with reasonably intelligent animals, you don't just tell two animals to > interact, except in the rare case where you don't care whether they become > friends or dinner. You're model of computer programming is very alien to me. So I don't think it will be productive to try to convince you of what I'm suggesting, but feel free to continue... Mark -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
