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

[Aaron Denney]

On 2004-10-21, Isaac Gouy <igouy2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How about laziness?  It's trivial in Haskell, possible to make fairly
>> painless in the ML's and scheme, and can be a pain in the imperative
>> languages.
>
> It would be a pain to implement it properly - but we'd only need to
> implement just enough to pretend it was sort-of maybe some-kind-of
> emulation-of laziness.

Right, and I'm fine with that.  I don't need the whole program to be
lazy for it to validly use the technique of laziness.  I don't
need the entire language to be lazy, just some way of delaying and
forcing evaluation.  At worst you can do this with some data structures
and that well known lazy construct "if-then-else".

In a CPS test, would you oppose including Java, because it doesn't let
you directly pass functions?

>> It's accurately reporting that OO that only uses those features in
>> language X will be faster than OO using only those those features in
>> language Y, because you can't turn off those features in language Y.
>
> This just skipped all around the issue - what's core OO.

Why does it matter what's "core OO"?  It's not like the OO community
has settled that question.  We can say what we're testing, and test it.
If you want to eliminate "writing to the test" in the object-system,
require the same object system for multiple tests.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-