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:

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:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Loup Vaillant <> 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]: 
>      (This is for reference, you don't really need to read it.)
> ______________________________**_________________
> fonc mailing list

-Brian T. Rice
fonc mailing list

Reply via email to