Hi Anton,
could you please point out to me the concepts you mention in a private
email ?
It still seems to me that what I said was right, see for instance:
https://wiki.c2.com/?AlanKaysDefinitionOfObjectOriented
Cheers,
mg
(Many of these topics are quite old, and things which are no big deal
now definitely were back then, such as the fact that C++ is not a TRUE
OO language, since calls are only virtual if the method carries that
explicit keyword - a useless design decision from my experience, yes (I
remember trying to find a case where non-virtual calls actually gave a
performance advantage in my C++ game engine back in 2000, and just could
not construct a real world example), but at the same time not that big a
deal in practice (why the much younger language of C# uses the same
concept remains puzzling, though.))
On 15/10/2020 20:16, Anton Shepelev wrote:
MG about Alan Kay's "message passing":
It is not an approach per se, but just terminology.
Lest I annoy the list administrators by continuing this off-
topic disussion, I will confine my reply to the remark that
Kay's concept of message passing is not mere terminology. It
is also more that just an approach -- it is a full-fledged
paradigm, alghough OCsite may not have meant it that way
when he mentioned it. Thanks for sympathy.
