Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33640
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: Not understanding OOP stuff |
| Date | 2017-07-24 11:04 +0200 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <3335323.kQq0lBPeGt@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <87k22zrmtj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3298850e-dce6-4384-af58-8bb58830960f@googlegroups.com> <87379msw5i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <messages-20170723230918@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <87a83ur1kp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
>>>The interesting things are the concepts not the names. ECMAScript
>>>supports many of the concepts that people like Alan Kay would say are
>>>essential to being object-oriented. It supports local retention and
>>>hiding of state along with extreme late binding, but it does not use
>>>message passing as the communication between objects.¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Why can't I say that when the JavaScript expression
>>
>> o.m()
>>
>> is being evaluated, "the call message »m()« is being
>> sent to the object »o«"¹?
>
> You certainly can. I don't like to say that but it's very far from
> being objectively wrong to do so.
ACK.
>> How do you define »message passing«, and which part
>> of your definition is not fulfilled by ECMAScript?
>
> For me, a message should be a thing in itself (in Smalltalk messages
> are, conceptually, objects though almost always optimised away). You
> should be able, when required, to build one at run-time and store it for
> later sending to an object.
That is possible in ECMAScript implementations:
var f = function (/* … */) { /* … */ };
var o = {};
o.foo = f;
o.foo();
> A natural consequence of that would be the ability of an object to forward
> a message to some other object.
That is also possible in ECMAScript implementations:
var o2 = {};
o2.bar = o.foo;
o2.bar();
var o3 = {};
o2.foo.call(o3, 42, 23);
o2.foo.apply(o3, [42, 23]);
The Editions of the ECMAScript Language Specification refer to this as
“transferred to other kinds of objects for use as a method”. Built-in
functions/methods that allow this are described as being “intentionally
generic; it does not require that its ‘this’ value be an [object type]
object.” ([ES2016], §§ 20.1.3.6, 20.3.4.37, 20.3.4.41, 21.1.3.1, etc.)
[ES2016] <http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/7.0/>
--
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Not understanding OOP stuff bit-naughty@hotmail.com - 2017-07-21 09:11 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff JJ <jj4public@vfemail.net> - 2017-07-22 19:36 +0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-23 18:12 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 09:19 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-23 20:10 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 12:42 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-23 22:03 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 14:18 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-24 03:22 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 21:44 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-24 03:49 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 21:50 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 19:50 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 12:00 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 09:29 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-25 05:58 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 11:04 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-25 00:09 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 09:20 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-25 11:31 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-25 17:02 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-07-25 23:47 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-27 15:15 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 10:33 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 02:13 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:15 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 03:58 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 09:42 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-25 05:59 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-25 18:32 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-23 22:42 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-23 13:55 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:18 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 15:19 +0200
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-07-24 10:20 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2017-07-24 11:46 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2017-07-25 05:37 -0700
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2017-07-24 11:04 +0100
Re: Not understanding OOP stuff Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-24 16:04 +0200
csiph-web