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 ...



*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:

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 <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?


[1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205976
     (This is for reference, you don't really need to read it.)
fonc mailing list

-Brian T. Rice

fonc mailing list

fonc mailing list
fonc mailing list

Reply via email to