I see no one has taken Alan's bait and asked the million dollar question: if you decided that messaging is no longer the right path for scaling, what approach are you currently using?
I would assume that FONC is the current approach, meaning, at the risk of grossly over-simplifying and sounding ignorant, "problem oriented languages" allowing for compact expression of meaning. But even here, FONC struck me as providing vastly better ways of creating code that, at its core, still used messaging for robustness, etc, rather than using something entirely different. Have I completely misread the FONC projects? And if not messaging, what approach are you currently using to handle scalability? 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
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
