[Shootout-list] Re: OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)

[Aaron Denney]

On 2004-10-20, Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Aaron Denney <wnoise@ofb.net> wrote:
>> However, once you add an object system, you do get an OO language.
>> Having the system be implementable in the language (e.g. CLOS)
>> doesn't strike me as being good grounds for disqualification.
>
> Being an ad-hoc roll-your-own implementation of OO was the grounds for
> disqualification that I had in mind :-)

Right.  So would scheme + someone else's object-system count?
Not ad-hoc, and _I_ didn't roll it.  I think you mean something
like "distributed with most implementations of the language,
or "language definition includes an object system".

> Here's a method:
> - include the languages that definitely claim to be OO languages
> - exclude the languages that don't claim to be OO languages
> - argue about the undecided

Languages don't claim, people do.  And hey, I know I've heard
"Haskell is world's the best imperative language", so I'm sure
I can get someone to say Haskell is an OO language...

In reality, of course, these are fairly clear distinctions.

If we were to do this, I'd prefer it if objinst and methcall to be given
a default weighting of 0 on the CRAPS.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-