Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2

Path	csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Return-Path	<dreamingforward@gmail.com>
X-Original-To	python-list@python.org
Delivered-To	python-list@mail.python.org
X-Spam-Status	OK 0.060
X-Spam-Evidence	'H': 0.88; 'S': 0.00; 'logic': 0.09; 'oop': 0.09; "they've": 0.09; 'python': 0.11; 'language.': 0.14; 'calculus,': 0.16; 'compatible,': 0.16; 'janssen': 0.16; 'lambda': 0.16; 'lisp': 0.16; 'mark,': 0.16; 'philosophy.': 0.16; 'to:name:python list': 0.16; 'words.': 0.16; 'wow,': 0.16; 'folks': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'split': 0.19; 'machine': 0.22; 'separate': 0.22; 'guys': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; '(which': 0.31; 'bunch': 0.31; 'remotely': 0.31; 'anyone': 0.31; 'entirely': 0.33; 'fri,': 0.33; 'implemented': 0.33; 'core': 0.34; 'problem.': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; 'too': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'whatever': 0.38; 'to:addr:python- list': 0.38; 'issue': 0.38; 'list,': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; '12,': 0.39; 'itself': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'even': 0.60; 'simply': 0.61; 'story': 0.63; 'field': 0.63; 'different': 0.65; 'within': 0.65; 'here': 0.66; 'between': 0.67; 'methodology': 0.68; 'theoretical': 0.74; 'different.': 0.84; 'listening,': 0.84; '50+': 0.91; 'calculus': 0.91; 'washington': 0.93; '2013': 0.98
DKIM-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Rb1EDpnYcKY8FveaXZPog3iSuCdZddxhZRezLsKAVlM=; b=XCtFdNwijc3/tncaZOq2o8LkRfedfVRKvov1Dip2+2bhOeXcUZk6dGD8prPaY5RIwI 5V2MRfgzQfqyBZwFiGavQy+2u5ud+gt+knZVJ1NqfKQV7XnVuwYE9UnNmPlM3hg6SFLC gbDHzsiY1LrMs2SQ07FoNeAiRoPhO6GFou4NiTeqGXB4X8S/whaEHobqlbOOSs1bZJZi q+sEEXn6MvxqCA/vO5nfXE6dc0T50LhTMqJDJqaikDhwDAz5TeApTNM6fLNHlUh5r3fD KkmnLrU/9unjozlSbgJeJIVTX6ZU7z38lsBeabnj5cmvo9oh2sFpwF7mrKPyiXjpfDfK e06g==
MIME-Version	1.0
X-Received	by 10.194.61.237 with SMTP id t13mr14753668wjr.2.1368066958746; Wed, 08 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To	<CAMjeLr8+pr12+0mN0SOrtg9ZTkNq=PiqxWyqB8CxpJ0BT=sxJA@mail.gmail.com>
References	<CAMjeLr_eJf1Aboz=2+oti4TOV=oejUYVo7K4zks+Ck4CSHaqpg@mail.gmail.com> <5167F327.3030803@nedbatchelder.com> <CAMjeLr8+pr12+0mN0SOrtg9ZTkNq=PiqxWyqB8CxpJ0BT=sxJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date	Wed, 8 May 2013 19:35:58 -0700
Subject	Re: Message passing syntax for objects \| OOPv2
From	Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
To	Python List <python-list@python.org>
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-BeenThere	python-list@python.org
X-Mailman-Version	2.1.15
Precedence	list
List-Id	General discussion list for the Python programming language <python-list.python.org>
List-Unsubscribe	<http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive	<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/>
List-Post	<mailto:python-list@python.org>
List-Help	<mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe	<http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list>, <mailto:python-list-request@python.org?subject=subscribe>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.1475.1368066966.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink)
Lines	32
NNTP-Posting-Host	2001:888:2000:d::a6
X-Trace	1368066966 news.xs4all.nl 15905 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52836
X-Complaints-To	abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.python:44991

Show key headers only | View raw

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Mark Janssen
<dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
>> future.
>
> Wow, you guys are a bunch of ninnies.  I'm going to find some
> theoretical folks....

Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.

This issue is/was much deeper than OOP (which would be roughly a 20
year refactoring) -- that was my mistake.  The issue goes right to the
core to models of computation and the historical factions within
theoretical CS itself (a 50+ year refactoring).

The field needs re-invented and re-centered.  Mark my words.  There
has been a half-century of confusion between two entirely separate
domains and they've been using the same lexicon.  Long story short:
the lambda calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
 These models of computation should not use the same language.  Their
computation models are too radically different.  Lisp will remain a
pinnacle of the lambda calculus, but should be remanded to philosophy.
 The logic of the binary/boolean arithmetic is simply not compatible,
but forms the basis of any sensible computer science here in the West.

Here pronouncith the.... whatever

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-05-08 19:35 -0700
  Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-08 20:26 -0700
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-05-08 20:53 -0700
  Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-09 05:39 +0000
    Alternate computational models can be harmonious (was Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-09 04:56 -0700
    Re: Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2 Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-05-09 14:41 -0700

csiph-web