it is perhaps inappropriate to comment on a discussion before posting an introduction (as I was asked to do when I joined the list) but I cannot resist. (I will post an intro tonight.)
As an unmitigated object bigot I would claim that there is nothing in agents (or aspects for that matter) that did not exist in objects as objects were supposed to be. The fact that objects were hijacked and emasculated by C++ (later Java) and data modelers (UML) explains much of the bafflement: perhaps. On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:05:44 -0600, "Marcus G. Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Douglas Roberts wrote: > > I still can't help but feeling that in general, *way* too many words > > are being used to describe ABM (and IBM) methodologies. The > > underlying concept of object-oriented software design as the basis for > > ABM simulation architecture is just so straight forward and intuitive > > that I am repeatedly amazed at how people continue to make such a big, > > mysterious deal out of it. > For some reason many ABM enthusiasts feel the need to introduce basic > programming and computer science to their peers in their own peculiar > and impoverished language. > Why OOP gets embraced in particular completely baffles me and much of it > is inappropriate for modeling. (e.g. rigid inheritance) I suspect it > has to do with the need many perceive to learn and use toolkits. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
