This question was prompted by a quote by Joe Armstrong about OOP[1].
It is for Alan Kay, but I'm totally fine with a relevant link. Also,
"I don't know" and "I don't have time for this" are perfectly okay.
Alan, when the term "Object oriented" you coined has been hijacked by
Java and Co, you made clear that you were mainly about messages, not
classes. My model of you even says that Erlang is far more OO than Java.
Then why did you chose the term "object" instead of "message" in the
first place? Was there a specific reason for your preference, or did
you simply not bother foreseeing any terminology issue? (20/20 hindsight
and such.)
Bonus question: if you had choose "message" instead, do you think it
would have been hijacked too?
Thanks,
Loup.
[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205976
(This is for reference, you don't really need to read it.)
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
