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

[Isaac Gouy]

--- Aaron Denney <wnoise@ofb.net> wrote:
> On 2004-10-20, Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> > All languages have different concepts in nearly all the tests.
> 
> Fair cop, but OO is more vague than most. 

And given that, there's still no difficulty saying that Clean is not an
OO language. Mea Culpa - I wrote those Clean OO programs :-)

> Saying "the objects should support: interfaces, messaging, mutation,
> and single inheritance" would make me a bit happier.

Why would a multiple inheritance language be less OO?
What happened to object identity?
Not sure what is meant by "interfaces" in this case
One persons "messaging" is another persons function call ;-)

 
> Compare with arrays, where it is commonly understood to be an
> optimized map from a continuous subset (usually [0,n[) of the
integers
> to one arbitrary type. 

That would only be true of statically checked languages.
The degenerate case is keyed access to a collection, using integer
keys.


> > Creating OO in a non-OO language should show up in the LOC metric -
> > if it doesn't it is a good indicator that objects were not so hard
> > in the specific language. 
> Quite true.  

I disagree - the objinst & methcall tests weren't designed to test that
a language was OO, but to measure performance.


> > I think we would better make the shootout better and add new
> > things, fix the pages and missing entries rather than speak about
> > what to remove.
> Hmm, yes.  I'll think a bit on what would be good to add.

We can make the Shootout better by removing stuff that's bad,
as-well-as adding stuff that seems good. (Adding flawed tests is
unfortunately easy.)


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com