Independently of the originally-directed historical intent, I'll pose my own quick perspective.
Perhaps a contrast with Steve Yegge's Kingdom of Nouns essay would help: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html The modern post-Erlang sense of message-oriented computing has to do with messages with structure and pattern-matching, where error-handling isn't about sequential, nested access, but more about independent structures dealing with untrusted noise. Anyway, treating the messages as first-class objects (in the Lisp sense) is what gets you there: http://www.erlang.org/doc/getting_started/conc_prog.html On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Loup Vaillant <l...@loup-vaillant.fr> wrote: > 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<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<http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc> > -- -Brian T. Rice
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
