Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!dedibox.gegeweb.org!gegeweb.eu!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!nerim.net!novso.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMjeLr9MRs4aozfYwHU93nKZ0_8s5guFrtj+m_AMycgvFch2Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMjeLr_dBCSL9VGjrW6wJjMDhLWFdxWqGWw+5MXTfo8+x9yfYw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMjeLr_q-8NbBAOOZ7yu8H+WcrJNU=8ZmudWkt9itM9ZLJuh4g@mail.gmail.com> <ki7oja$u70$1@ger.gmane.org> <CAMjeLr9MRs4aozfYwHU93nKZ0_8s5guFrtj+m_AMycgvFch2Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 13:34:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Message passing syntax for objects
From: Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu>
To: python-list@python.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Precedence: list
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3475.1363638846.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 55
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:41458

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl <g.brandl@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
>>> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
>>> be defined.  Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
>>> standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of "every object
>>> interacts with other objects".
>>
>> The problem is that for most objects there isn't *the* interaction.  Sure,
>> you could split up complicated objects into small pieces with a smaller
>> functionality, but at some point you have to stop.
>
> Yes.  But that is the point, if you look at the quora post -- to
> invert the object model and create mashups of simple modular data
> types and working *upwards*.
>
>>  Let's see how this
>> concept fares with simple types such as integers or collections...
>>
>>>>>> 42 >> MyNumberType #would add the integer to your integer type
>>
>> That's just random.  Why not multiply?  Why not exponentiate?
>
> Well, as I noted in another post, that while these can be broken down
> into their simpler component (addition and negative numbers), numbers
> should probably be treated separately.
>
>>>>>> 42 >> MyCollectionType  #would add the object into your collection:
>>>  *poof*: no more random syntaxiis for putting things in collections.\
>>
>> So you've replaced one method of a collections API by your magical operator,
>> for all collections.
>
> Yes -- for all collections.  That's a pretty big gain right?
>

Nope. No gain at all. Instead of learning the add() method, you learn
the >> operator. You have not simplified anything.
>> It seems that you are reinventing pipes (such as UNIX shell pipes).
>
> That is a very interesting comparison.  That is something like what
> I'm trying to do.  In tandem with the Internet, I do see a kind of
> synthesis of Web + O.S. integration -- ultimately, creating a "data
> ecosystem".
>
> mark

Yes, having the whole program run by chaining functions together is a
neat idea. And it works great in functional languages- if you want
that as a feature, use OCaml or Haskell. It works less well in
imperative languages where you are manipulating data, not just passing
it around.

> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list