Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Reentrant code
Message-ID: <996@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 9 Oct 89 19:44:27 GMT
References: <11242@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> <4513@internal.Apple.COM> <24517@dcatla.UUCP> <4540@internal.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 16

In article <4540@internal.Apple.COM> Piersol@apple.com (Kurt Piersol) writes:
>Now here's an interesting thought. Am I in fact incorrect in assuming that 
>all OOP systems contain some concept of messaging?

Well, in Lisp, the difference between

   (send instance operation other-arg...)

and

   (operation instance other-arg...)

doesn't look all that great to me, and I think a similar equivalence
might be drawn in other languages.  Besides, do we really want to
argue that C++ isn't object-oriented just because calling a member
function doesn't involve a syntax that looks like sending a message?