Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33322

Re: Overriding function and adding a bit

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>>> In a video by one of the Smalltalk inventors, probably Alan Kay, the
>>> speaker ended by saying that a language is Object Oriented *ONLY* if
>>> it has *ALL* the features of Smalltalk.
>>>
>>> So
>>>   Strongly typed languages are not OO.
>>>   Languages where a garbage collector is optional are not OO.
>>>   Languages which don't call methods by sending messages are not OO.
>>>
>>> I think he was biased in favour of Smalltalk, too biased.
>> 
>> Sure, but I don't think it matters too much because he's explicit about
>> the definition he's using (or, indeed, invented) so the discussion can't
>> be derailed by misunderstanding.  I like it when people are passionate
>> about technical matters, and I like having definitions that stake out
>> the boundaries of concepts like this, even if they are not universally
>> agreed upon.
>> 
>> And I feel inclined to nit-pick a bit: I think you mean "static typing"
>> rather than "strong typing". 
>
> I think you mean static _type-checking_.

Not really, though it would certainly do.  I wanted to focus on the
static analysis of types more generally including include languages
without type declaration where the types are inferred.  Obviously some
of these might also check some types, but if the semantics are very
forgiving there may nothing to "check" (in the usual sense of giving a
type error).  I don't imagine there are any such languages, but it was
not the checking that mattered to me at the time I wrote the above.

> If anyone doubts that e.g. Java (which does have static type-checking) is
> an object-oriented programming language, they did way too much Small talk.

Quite.  These days the term obviously doesn't mean what Kay wants it to
mean, and I doubt it did even at the time.  Simula is usually described
as object-oriented and dates form the mod 1960s.  It may be that no one
put the words "object" and "oriented" together before Kay did, but if
he'd asked the Simula people, in 1967, if their programs were
"object-oriented" I think they would have said yes because of the
obvious meaning of the juxtaposition.

-- 
Ben.

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Overriding function and adding a bit Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:59 +1000
  Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-05-10 15:33 +0000
    Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-10 19:14 +0200
      Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-05-10 22:57 +0000
        Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-11 01:49 +0200
          Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-11 17:03 +0200
            Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Andrew Poulos <ap_prog@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-12 08:32 +1000
              Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-12 22:12 +0200
            Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-12 03:13 +0200
          Re: Overriding function and adding a bit John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-11 16:33 +0100
            Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-11 18:54 +0100
          Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-05-11 22:02 +0000
            Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-12 01:53 +0200
              Re: Overriding function and adding a bit John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-12 10:05 +0100
              Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2017-05-12 21:43 +0000
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-12 23:03 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-12 17:28 -0700
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-13 14:39 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-13 07:17 -0700
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 16:25 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-13 08:30 -0700
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Cezary Tomczyk <cezary.tomczyk@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 17:56 +0200
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-13 09:04 -0700
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 20:55 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 00:00 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 03:07 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-13 18:39 -0700
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-14 11:23 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-05-14 11:36 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 12:34 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-14 14:11 +0200
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 15:37 +0100
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-14 17:16 +0200
                Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-14 15:40 +0200
          Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2017-05-11 15:39 -0700
        Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2017-05-11 10:39 +0100
    Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-11 10:05 -0700
  Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-10 19:13 +0200
    Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-10 19:22 +0200
    Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-11 10:08 -0700
  Re: Overriding function and adding a bit Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-05-11 09:56 -0700

csiph-web