Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!newsfeed.freenet.ag!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 11:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3459.1363626278.2939.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=123.192.32.215; posting-account=5JdMBQoAAABHnS4mjpqEzxnmWtgiiVNw
References: <CAMjeLr_dBCSL9VGjrW6wJjMDhLWFdxWqGWw+5MXTfo8+x9yfYw@mail.gmail.com> <5146B848.3040509@pearwood.info> <CAMjeLr9bH9nYpEeq8KjzHXmEXpuUgAjvWb3f2e7VR2sno=6Rkw@mail.gmail.com> <mailman.3459.1363626278.2939.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Message passing syntax for objects
From: 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com>
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Python List <python-list@python.org>, Python-Ideas <python-ideas@python.org>
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.3477.1363641986.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 98
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:41461

zipher=E6=96=BC 2013=E5=B9=B43=E6=9C=8819=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=BA=
=8CUTC+8=E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=881=E6=99=8204=E5=88=8636=E7=A7=92=E5=AF=AB=E9=81=
=93=EF=BC=9A
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> w=
rote:
>=20
> > I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm no=
t
>=20
> > entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link a=
bove,
>=20
> > and subsequent emails in this thread, and I'm afraid I don't understand=
 what
>=20
> > you mean here. I feel you are assuming that your readers are already ex=
perts
>=20
> > on message-passing languages (Smalltalk?). I know what *I* mean by mess=
age
>=20
> > passing, but that's not necessarily what you mean by it.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> I'm sorry, I haven't been very clear.  I'm not even an expert on
>=20
> message-passing languages, but I see that it's a profound concept that
>=20
> hasn't been adequately integrated into the OOP model.  In any case, I
>=20
> will try to do better.  And I apologize to everyone on the list for
>=20
> the prior mail spam.  A part of me is a bit giddy with the idea.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> By message passing, I mean all the ways we communicate to objects in
>=20
> the OOP environment.  Usually we "communicate" to them through
>=20
> method-invokation.  But this is the wrong way, I argue, to look at the
>=20
> problem.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> With function or method syntax, you're telling the computer to
>=20
> "execute something", but that is not the right concepts for OOP.  You
>=20
> want the objects to interact with each other and in a high-level
>=20
> language, the syntax should assist with that.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> > By building it into the language, it would *enforce* a modular object
>=20
> > style, rather than the current, very specialized and very programmer
>=20
> > specific way there is now.  In fact, most people never really think in
>=20
> > that paradigm, yet if the language supported/proposed such a syntax,
>=20
> > programmers would start to re-arrange the whole object hierarchy in a
>=20
> > new, more modular and universal way.
>=20
> > [end quote]
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I don't understand this. In what way would message passing enforce a mo=
dular
>=20
> > object style? In what way does Python not already have a modular object
>=20
> > style?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Hopefully my paragraph clarifies that a bit.  But the key conceptual
>=20
> shift is that by enforcing a syntax that moves away from invoking
>=20
> methods and move to message passing between objects, you're
>=20
> automatically enforcing a more modular approach.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Mark

Please check object pascal and objective c and erlang for=20
the message-action director model of what you want.

C is too low level to be suitable for everything.