Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watmum!gvcormack
From: gvcormack@watmum.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: More on OOP
Message-ID: <793@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Jan-87 09:01:32 EST
Article-I.D.: watmum.793
Posted: Sat Jan 24 09:01:32 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Jan-87 15:59:26 EST
References: <8049@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 31

In article <8049@tekecs.TEK.COM>, jeffmc@tekecs.UUCP writes:
> I consider dynamic (or at least late) binding as an important part of the
> power of OOP.
>   ... a well written argument (that I disagree with) that dynamic
        binding is essential to software reusibility ...

> One last comment: There has been discussion here and in other places
> about the 'silliness' of using a message passing syntax. 
>      ... We have found that even within a OOP program the actual
> names (selectors) used for the messages can have a strong influence on
> the understanding of a piece of code.

No argument.  Why is this restricted to OOP?

>     From the users point of view,
> asking something to do something by using a message is very different
> from invoking a function. Just think about who is in control.

Exactly.  No matter how you dress it up, the *caller* is in control.
Now, if the object were operating as an independent process with
a thread of control, it would be appropriate to call it a message.
And message-passing process-oriented programming is a useful 
paradigm (but could still benefit from strong typing).  Read 
Gentleman's paper in SP&E (1980 - don't have a more precise reference).
It is apparent that messages in Smalltalk are really procedure
calls when you have a look at its brain-damaged support for 
concurrency.
-- 
Gordon V. Cormack     CS Dept, University of Waterloo, Canada N2L 3G1
                      gvcormack@mum.waterloo  { .CSNET or .CDN }
                      gvcormack@water         { UUCP or BITNET }