Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #33668
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: Not understanding OOP stuff |
| Date | 2017-07-25 23:47 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87379km8vc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <messages-20170723230918@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <87a83ur1kp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3335323.kQq0lBPeGt@PointedEars.de> <871sp5ph3z.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <10884077.O9o76ZdvQC@PointedEars.de> |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>
>> […] That's all part of the late binding that some people consider so
>> important.
>>
>> […] in a message passing language the message can fail if the
>> object does not implement that particular message. In your examples,
>> the message sending (which is just a function call) can't fail for that
>> reason.
>>
>> To my mind, message passing would look rather more like:
>>
>> var msg = ["foo", 42, 23];
>> o.process_message(msg);
>>
>> This would succeed or fail depending on whether o's prototype chain
>> included a foo method at that time.
>
> Calling a method on an object referred to by “o” – which in OOP/UML terms is
> equivalent to sending a message to an object where the call’s arguments are
> the message contents – *does* fail if that object does not have, and no
> object in its prototype chain has, a method of that name *at runtime*.
> *That* *is* late binding.
Yes, I know. Your example could not fail because it gave the object the
target method. I am sure that ECMAScript can something very like
Smalltalk's message passing, but the example was not close enough in my
opinion.
> try
> {
> o.foo(42, 23);
> }
> catch (e)
> {
> /* TypeError: o.foo is not a function */
> }
>
> ISTM you are confusing messages sent to objects with those appended to a
> message queue (which does not need to pertain to objects). Maybe because
> you are accustomed to programming languages or software systems where
> object-orientation is implemented in that way.
No.
--
Ben.
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