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

[Isaac Gouy]

There are better forums for debating what OO is and isn't - like
comp.lang.object (although it's a conversation they grew bored with a
decade ago).

> > Shifting judgement onto the test is just going to make it more
> > difficult to write benchmark tests and more difficult to write
> > programs that meet them. 
> 
> Simple: the object system used must allow dispatch to be controlled
> by the type of the object, and adding new types of objects must not
> involve altering the dispatch mechanism or global mapping tables.

That's a criteria we could choose to judge if a program is acceptable -
just like saying there should be object identity, encapsulation,
subtype polymorphism - but you haven't shown how to make it part of a
test.

 
> I don't think subtyping (either explicit or implicit) is the
> definitive distinguishing feature of OO -- consider Smalltalk or
> Objective-C where all objects can receive all messages (though they
> may respond with a "does not understand" exception).  In that sense
> everything is a subtype of everything else.

Let me suggest there's no-such-thing as "The" definitive distinguishing
feature of OO - 3 distinguishing features I could believe.

I've spent 10 years programming Smalltalk - there is no sense in which
"everything is a subtype of everything else", everything is a subtype
of Object.


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail