IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Litmus Test
If the difference between MOO and FOO languages is the reification of messages, then I propose a simple litmus test:

Write a decorator like class that will:

(1) Pass any message through to its decorated object.
(2) Record the sequence of messages that passed through it.
(3) Playback the messages to a different object.[1]

The theory is that this should be almost trivial in MOO languages and difficult in FOO languages.

Example Usage:
\n  s = "Hello, World"\n  pb = PlayBack.new(s)\n  pb.upcase!\n  pb.reverse!\n  puts str             # => 'DLROW ,OLLEH'\n\n  t = "yikes"\n  pb.playback_on(t)\n  puts t               # => 'SEKIY'\n


Note [1]: For simplicity, we are assuming the "playback_on" message isn't recorded or passed on. Although in theory this is a hole in the spec, it doesn't really effect the litmus test.
--
-- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link|http://onestepback.org|http://onestepback.org]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
New Yes and No
To write a specific decorator class for a specific object is relatively straightforward in Java (if the object implements an interface), for example you can use a java.lang.reflect.Proxy. What Smalltalk gives you is the ability to create a generic decorator which can front any arbitrary object (changeable at runtime). That will be very difficult in a FOO like language.
     Message Object Oriented vs Function Object Oriented - (JimWeirich) - (71)
         It's not so much a Language issue... - (ChrisR) - (28)
             Mind Games - (JimWeirich) - (27)
                 The biggest difference is how one treats the interaction - (ChrisR) - (26)
                     Now a Language Issue again - (JimWeirich) - (25)
                         Is it "missing methods" or "invalid messages" it handles? - (CRConrad) - (23)
                             Both. - (admin) - (22)
                                 Sorry, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. - (CRConrad) - (21)
                                     Needlessly pedantic, IMO. - (admin) - (20)
                                         OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (CRConrad) - (8)
                                             Lose the chip... -NT - (admin) - (3)
                                                 OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?) -NT - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                     Suit yourself. -NT - (admin)
                                                     You can do it (new thread) - (orion)
                                             FOO bad. MOO good. - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                                 Mooooooo. -NT - (admin)
                                                 Re: FOO bad. MOO good. - (JimWeirich)
                                             Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (JimWeirich)
                                         Method VS Message - (JimWeirich) - (10)
                                             Sure. -NT - (admin)
                                             Re: Method VS Message - (tuberculosis) - (8)
                                                 Re: Method VS Message - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                     Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed us? - (FuManChu) - (1)
                                                         Re: Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed - (deSitter)
                                                     In theory yes, in practice no - (bluke) - (4)
                                                         You must cheat - but you must not get caught - (tuberculosis) - (3)
                                                             Yes exactly - (bluke) - (2)
                                                                 Hmmm sounds as if - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                     Not *so* clever - (tuberculosis)
                         At that level, it is a language issue... - (ChrisR)
         DoesNotUnderstand - (tuberculosis) - (6)
             Reified Messages - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                 Sounds about right to me -NT - (tuberculosis)
             Re: DoesNotUnderstand - (deSitter) - (3)
                 nil is an object -NT - (admin) - (2)
                     Re: nil is an object - (deSitter) - (1)
                         Re: nil is an object - (bluke)
         ICLRPD - (static)
         It is a fundamental difference - (bluke) - (30)
             More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (9)
                 Re: More Questions - (bluke) - (3)
                     Re: More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (2)
                         It relates more to the mindset - (bluke)
                         In past discussions with Freep... - (ChrisR)
                 Where does polymorphism fit in? - (static) - (1)
                     Polymorphism via inheritance/interface - (ChrisR)
                 Example - (tuberculosis) - (1)
                     Re: Example - (JimWeirich)
                 Statically Typed Smalltalk - (tuberculosis)
             Statically Typed MOO - (JimWeirich) - (19)
                 The other possible avenue - (ChrisR) - (18)
                     Do you know how they do that? - (bluke) - (17)
                         Compiler generates the necessary calls - (ChrisR)
                         AspectJ is code generation - (tuberculosis) - (15)
                             A comment and a question ... - (JimWeirich) - (12)
                                 Not really - (tuberculosis) - (11)
                                     Pushing the limits of Blanchard's Law - (JimWeirich) - (10)
                                         I don't think the basic argument is so much - (ChrisR) - (8)
                                             Re: I don't think the basic argument is so much - (JimWeirich) - (7)
                                                 Should probably let Todd defend his Laws....but.... :-) - (ChrisR) - (6)
                                                     Still sounds arbitrary ... - (JimWeirich) - (5)
                                                         On par with "Eval" - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                             Well said -NT - (tuberculosis)
                                                         No its not - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                                                             Ok, I get it. - (JimWeirich) - (1)
                                                                 Yep -NT - (tuberculosis)
                                         Oh yeah - (FuManChu)
                             What is your reasoning for this "law"? - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                 OT re: coming to this thread late - (drewk)
         Litmus Test - (JimWeirich) - (1)
             Yes and No - (bluke)
         Interesting comp.lang.smalltalk thread on this - (bluke)

Due to a vast miscalculation, it was accidentally swallowed by a small dog.
140 ms