Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Ultra composable (reusable) "objects" Message-ID: <5361@stpstn.UUCP> Date: 14 Jul 90 02:55:58 GMT References: <39400113@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <112789@linus.mitre.org> <112896@linus.mitre.org> Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Organization: Stepstone Lines: 26 In article jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) writes: >In article <112896@linus.mitre.org> mitchell@community-chest.uucp (George Mitchell) writes: >Subroutines and parameters or even objects and methods >as we know them today just DON'T cut it; they are just not easily >composable. We desperately need some new ideas here. > Wouldn't bringing some very old and well-proven ideas thoroughly online do too? Check out Paul Morrison's work (IBM Toronto), Fabrik (Ingals et al; second OOPSLA Proceedings), LabView (commercial laboratory automation product; National Instruments), Metaphor (commercial product; Metaphor computer systems). For that matter, check out Unix shell programs. All support dataflows; a *wonderfully* composable kind of "object" if you can avoid getting people too hung up on the fact that dataflow objects don't support inheritance. The repertoire only begins, not ends, with lightweight and heavyweight dataflows (processes). There are also Linda objects, constraint-based objects, etc, etc. There is no shortage of technology. What we're lacking is the determination to use technologies already rotting on the shelves. -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482