On 10/1/22 10:10 pm, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 10/1/22 8:34 pm, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 09.01.2022 16:29, Seymour J Metz wrote:
Well all of your languages miss the support for the message paradigm.
What do you mean by "the message paradigm"? How does it differ from sending
method invocation
and response messages to objects?
The message paradigm as set forth by Smalltalk explicitly defines a class for
messages, allows for
intercepting messages, rerouting messages at the will of the programmer and
much more, as messages
themselves become objects that the programmer can interact with, if needed.
ooRexx implements the message paradigm in full, something that is easily
overlooked as usually it is
not necessary to be aware of it.
If it's not necessary then why did you make such a big deal about it?
Well if you have really read the entire post you should know. Without
implementing the message
paradigm things become clumsy and some important features, if you need them,
are simply not available.
I'm still completely baffled by the why not implementing the "message
paradigm" is clumsy. Returning "self" from a method makes sense to me.
What if I'm creating a class which supports method chaining
but some methods return values other than self. Nothing you are saying
makes sense to me. It's dogma.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
