COPL, the Tandem, PLITS and JAVA (WAS Re: Eppur si sugat)
Thu May 29 09:17:30 CEST 2003
> Smalltalk-style OO *is* "communicating black boxes" AFAICT.
> Once (on another mailing list far far away) I proposed that one of the
> properties of objects was that they were chronologically independent
> (i.e. - since they isolated state from one another, they could well be
> concurrent.) Naturally, most people on that list thought that was
> ridiculous, since they don't do that in Java or C++, so it's "not OO".
...and this is why almost so called OO _languages_ suck! The OO
"paradigm" itself is not objectionable(!) to me, but the current
*implementations* are. Smalltalk is probably the least offensive example
of OO that I can think of, and having used a similar late-binding
loose-typed proprietry language I can appreciate the rapid prototyping
and runtime error recovery. But C++ and Java have lost these most
attractive aspects by attempting to be strong-typed and early-binding.
> [...] in order for a replacement for records to not suck as
> badly, some research would have to be done into what means of
> aggregating data & code have succeeded in not sucking. i.e. to look
> into fields like OO and take what works and leave behind what doesn't.
I find that records in themselves are syntactically ugly, but
semantically useful. The only thing about records I would change would
be the syntax, and only for aesthetic reasons.
> But if the anti-OO sentiment in Erlang becomes fundamental, there's no
> point - anything from OO would be rejected on the grounds that OO
> inherently sucks for COPL - [...]
We discussed this at the London Erlounge over a few pints and fine food
at the http://www.lowlander.com/ last night, and I think that dogmatism
tends to set in when all one has is a single paradigm to use as an
abstraction of our perception of the world and as a frame for our
beliefs. A Java/C++ programmer without knowledge of other programming
languages can only grasp concepts that relate to Java/C++. I don't think
that the good people discussing on this list are exclusively Erlang
evangelists or even functional fundamentalists, and wouldn't reject a
good idea simply because it's not FP/COPL. In fact I've mostly found
that ideas are freely discussed here, it's a pleasantly open-minded
More information about the erlang-questions