Post #110,747
7/21/03 5:47:53 PM
|
OK, so why don't we do it that way, then...
Scott replies: We've already established that messages might as well be methods (functions), and that MOO handles missing (as in, missing method signature, not just missing method name) method calls. OK, so let's make the slogan "FOO gives errors on missing methods, MOO allows the object to decide how to handle missing methods". I mean, why not, if they're as equivalent as you say? We wouldn't want to start this off thread, too, on a basis of presupposing that the "message-oriented" terminology is somehow more appropriate, would we...? Not unless we wanted, from the very outset, to arrive at the conclusion "FOO bad! MOO good!", I think... And if that's the case, everybody just please let me know, so I can leave you to carry on the discussion without me.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #110,748
7/21/03 5:49:48 PM
|
Lose the chip...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #110,749
7/21/03 6:02:31 PM
|
OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?)
|
Post #110,750
7/21/03 6:03:29 PM
|
Suit yourself.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #110,769
7/21/03 7:41:37 PM
|
You can do it (new thread)
Created as new thread #110768 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=110768|You can do it]
|
Post #110,751
7/21/03 6:12:31 PM
|
FOO bad. MOO good.
Ok, who's handing out these acronyms anyway. I hope they don't stick. :-) We wouldn't want to start this off thread, too, on a basis of presupposing that the "message-oriented" terminology is somehow more appropriate, would we...? If you did want that capability to dispatch on "Message Not Understood", then dynamic languages definitely have a leg up. It's also possible to do something similar via runtime reflection within a static language, but it's rare for static languages to pursue that path.
|
Post #110,753
7/21/03 6:16:14 PM
|
Mooooooo.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #110,755
7/21/03 6:31:36 PM
|
Re: FOO bad. MOO good.
I claim full responsibility for the acronyms. I just wanted a quick handle to differentiate the two approaches as we defined them.
--
-- 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)
|
Post #110,756
7/21/03 6:35:39 PM
|
Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then...
CRC: Not unless we wanted, from the very outset, to arrive at the conclusion "FOO bad! MOO good!",
That was not my intention. I would like to nail down the definitions and then move on to pros/cons of each.
--
-- 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)
|
