A little more history ...
The first Smalltalk (-72) was "modern" (as used below), and similar to Erlang
in several ways -- for example, messages were received with "structure and
pattern matching", etc. The language was extended using the same mechanisms ...
Cheers,
Alan
>________________________________
> From: Brian Rice <briantr...@gmail.com>
>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:54 AM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Terminology: "Object Oriented" vs "Message Oriented"
>
>
>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
>> (This is for reference, you don't really need to read it.)
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>fonc@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>
>
>
>--
>-Brian T. Rice
>_______________________________________________
>fonc mailing list
>fonc@vpri.org
>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
