Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=1Pd7Xu61urXtuLcXom2zAxZrgVZFzGqPYfNm/nDHqjBWhgNHDPWw7zRzPVb/oY1Goy1cu7cpyqB21GdwLOLuBUygB8Jf+wo8ObbOAHAj0QoF9x3M3IjhjdgeKAnpjVH4GvvICaiD+W+dK0pR5wb5DCw4KrOgsOgKdnym/Ylh5Bs=;
References: <CAMjeLr_dBCSL9VGjrW6wJjMDhLWFdxWqGWw+5MXTfo8+x9yfYw@mail.gmail.com> <5146B848.3040509@pearwood.info> <CAMjeLr9bH9nYpEeq8KjzHXmEXpuUgAjvWb3f2e7VR2sno=6Rkw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMjeLr9f1wmFTYh7ShQrzc-fo+Xa5DPG-LDULn2VnUbrBjEo-Q@mail.gmail.com> <1363643500.25746.YahooMailNeo@web184701.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAMjeLr-m5uOW95zSHMO-18i81dH4Es0OCpte-HEO_rCmV=dpWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andrew Barnert <abarnert@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Python-ideas] Message passing syntax for objects
To: Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMjeLr-m5uOW95zSHMO-18i81dH4Es0OCpte-HEO_rCmV=dpWA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Reply-To: Andrew Barnert <abarnert@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <mailman.3486.1363663902.2939.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 47
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:41477

From: Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com>=0A=0ASent: Monday, March 18,=
 2013 4:41 PM=0A=0A=0A> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert <ab=
arnert@yahoo.com> =0A> wrote:=0A>>  Have you even looked at a message-passi=
ng language?=0A>> =0A>>  A Smalltalk "message" is a selector and a sequence=
 of arguments. =0A> That's what you send around. Newer dynamic-typed messag=
e-passing OO and =0A> actor languages are basically the same as Smalltalk.=
=0A> =0A> Yes, but you have to understand that Alan Kays came with strange =
ideas=0A> of some future computer-human symbiosis.=C2=A0 So his language de=
sign and=0A> other similar attempts (like php) is rather skewed from that p=
remise=0A=0AThe idea that message passing is fundamentally different from m=
ethod calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it on=
ly took a couple years to prove that they are theoretically completely isom=
orphic=E2=80=94and, for that matter, they're both isomorphic to closures.=
=0A=0A> And also, despite name-dropping, I'm not trying to create anything=
=0A> like that idea of message-passing.=C2=A0 I'm talking about something v=
ery=0A> simple, a basic and universal way for objects to communicate.=0A=0A=
Message passing is a simple, basic, and universal way for objects to commun=
icate. Everything from dot-syntax method calls to JSON RPC protocols can be=
 modeled as passing messages.=C2=A0But what you're talking about isn't mess=
age passing. The idea that messages have names, and reference objects as ar=
guments, is fundamental, and by leaving that out, you're talking about some=
thing different.=C2=A0=0A=0AIn effect, your "objects" are just single-param=
eter functions, and your "messages" are the call operator.=0A=0A>>>  With f=
unction or method syntax, you're telling the computer to=0A>>>  "execute so=
mething", but that is not the right concepts for =0A> OOP.=C2=A0 You=0A>>> =
 want the objects to interact with each other and in a high-level=0A>>>  la=
nguage, the syntax should assist with that.=0A>>=C2=A0=0A=0A>>  And you hav=
e to tell the object _how_ to interact with each other.=0A> =0A> This is a =
different paradigm that what I'm talking about.=C2=A0 In the OOP=0A> of my =
world, Objects already embody the intelligence of how they are=0A> going to=
 interact with the outside world, because I put them there.=0A=0AThe paradi=
gm you're talking about is useless. You have lists that know how to append,=
 but don't know how to get/search/iterate. Almost every useful object needs=
 the intelligence to interact with the world in two or more ways.=0A=0A>>  =
Even with reasonably intelligent animals, you don't just tell two =0A> anim=
als to interact, except in the rare case where you don't care whether =0A> =
they become friends or dinner.=0A> =0A> You're model of computer programmin=
g is very alien to me.=C2=A0 So I don't=0A> think it will be productive to =
try to convince you of what I'm=0A> suggesting, but feel free to continue..=
.=0A=0A=0AMy model of (object-oriented) computer programming is that progra=
mming objects model objects which=C2=A0have a variety of behaviors, each of=
 which is triggered by sending a different message.=C2=A0This is pretty muc=
h the central definition that everyone who programs or theorizes about prog=
ramming uses. If you read any textbook, wiki page, journal article, or tuto=
rial, they're all talking about that, or something directly isomorphic to i=
t. If that's alien to you, then object-oriented programming is alien to you=
.