Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages

Subject	Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages
From	Matthias Felleisen <matthias@ccs.neu.edu>
Date	2013-04-15 09:50 -0400
References	<CAMjeLr_7A-NRtec=K_ZsjXA_oJHnD6+vpttz4Ma0vtDRbb+o2w@mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.634.1366035560.3114.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:

>  After the 2001 "type/class unification" , it went towards Alan Kay's ideal 

Are you sure? Remember Kay's two motivations [*], which he so elegantly describes with "[the] large scale one was to find a better module scheme for complex systems involving hiding of details, and the small scale one was to find a more flexible version of assignment, and then to try to eliminate it altogether."  At least for me, this quote sends a signal to language designers that is still looking for a receiver -- Matthias

[*] http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/EarlyHistoryST.html

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

Thread

Re: [TYPES] The type/object distinction and possible synthesis of OOP and imperative programming languages Matthias Felleisen <matthias@ccs.neu.edu> - 2013-04-15 09:50 -0400

csiph-web