Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #41563 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-03-19 21:24 -0700 |
| Last post | 2013-03-20 22:50 -0700 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [Python-ideas] Message passing syntax for objects Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> - 2013-03-19 21:24 -0700
Re: Message passing syntax for objects alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> - 2013-03-20 22:50 -0700
| From | Mark Janssen <dreamingforward@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-19 21:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: [Python-ideas] Message passing syntax for objects |
| Message-ID | <mailman.3543.1363753495.2939.python-list@python.org> |
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote: > On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote: > >> The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method >> calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it >> only took a couple years to prove that they are theoretically >> completely isomorphic—and, > > Since the isomorphism is so obvious, I somehow missed that Kay actually > thought that they were different. I suppose one could have different (but > isomorphic) mental image models. Yes, that's the point I'm making, and it's significant because other programmers can't see other's mental models. mark
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alex23 <wuwei23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-03-20 22:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Message passing syntax for objects |
| Message-ID | <b3ae2065-5c13-413a-8da4-b7b053232645@vv1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41563 |
On Mar 20, 2:24 pm, Mark Janssen <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, that's the point I'm making, and it's significant because other > programmers can't see other's mental models. How does having API-less magic objects make this any better? I pass a string message to your RSS object: does it create XML from it? does it parse it as RSS XML and return a mapping? Or do I have to read its code and/or documentation - like I currently do with the classes other developers create - and gain an understanding from that? How about backing up some of your claims of this brave new programming future with actual examples and evidence? Or would you prefer we listen to your gut feeling and ignore concrete research, as you recently recommended to Jane McGonigal? If that's the case, I believe there's a Python4K project which would benefit greatly from your "radical" ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web