Meyer, OO and concurrency

[todd]

David Hopwood wrote:

> todd wrote:
>
>> Thomas Lindgren wrote:
>>
>>> I found this on a blog
>>>
>>> "Bertrand Meyer had eloquently proven at ICSOC 2003
>>> that OO cannot deal with concurrency very well, in
>>> other words the granularity and programming model of
>>> an object don't let you create (autonomous) "peers"."
>>>
>>> http://www.ebpml.org/site_updates.htm
>>>
>>> Does anyone know more about this? I haven't been able
>>> to find what Meyer's actual argument was, but it
>>> sounds like what Some People have been preaching for a
>>> while :-)
>>
>>
>> That's absurd. Send a message to an active object that runs in its 
>> own thread. Done.
>
>
> There's a bit more to it than that:
> <http://www.erights.org/talks/promises/paper/tgc05.pdf>
>
There's always more and there's always less.  I have created many large 
scale distributed OO systems. Would it be simpler if a shared nothing 
system  was enforceable in C++ or Java? Certainly. I think Java really 
screwed up. C++ is, well, C++. Saying OO doesn't let you create 
autonomous peers simply isn't so. Some of my own thoughts are at 
http://www.possibility.com/epowiki/Wiki.jsp?page=ArchitectureDiscussion