Message Object Oriented vs Function Object Oriented - (JimWeirich) - (71) - July 21, 2003, 12:57:05 PM EDT
         It's not so much a Language issue... - (ChrisR) - (28) - July 21, 2003, 01:30:46 PM EDT
             Mind Games - (JimWeirich) - (27) - July 21, 2003, 03:35:18 PM EDT
                 The biggest difference is how one treats the interaction - (ChrisR) - (26) - July 21, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EDT
                     Now a Language Issue again - (JimWeirich) - (25) - July 21, 2003, 04:52:33 PM EDT
                         Is it "missing methods" or "invalid messages" it handles? - (CRConrad) - (23) - July 21, 2003, 05:04:43 PM EDT
                             Both. - (admin) - (22) - July 21, 2003, 05:08:28 PM EDT
                                 Sorry, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. - (CRConrad) - (21) - July 21, 2003, 05:28:58 PM EDT
                                     Needlessly pedantic, IMO. - (admin) - (20) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:53 PM EDT
                                         OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (CRConrad) - (8) - July 21, 2003, 05:47:53 PM EDT
                                             Lose the chip... -NT - (admin) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 05:49:48 PM EDT
                                                 OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?) -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:02:31 PM EDT
                                                     Suit yourself. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:03:29 PM EDT
                                                     You can do it (new thread) - (orion) - July 21, 2003, 07:41:37 PM EDT
                                             FOO bad. MOO good. - (ChrisR) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:12:31 PM EDT
                                                 Mooooooo. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:16:14 PM EDT
                                                 Re: FOO bad. MOO good. - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:31:36 PM EDT
                                             Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:35:39 PM EDT
                                         Method VS Message - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 21, 2003, 06:42:26 PM EDT
                                             Sure. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:56:59 PM EDT
                                             Re: Method VS Message - (tuberculosis) - (8) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:37 AM EDT
                                                 Re: Method VS Message - (deSitter) - (7) - July 21, 2003, 11:42:24 PM EDT
                                                     Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed us? - (FuManChu) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 12:49:34 AM EDT
                                                         Re: Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed - (deSitter) - July 22, 2003, 12:59:53 AM EDT
                                                     In theory yes, in practice no - (bluke) - (4) - July 22, 2003, 06:01:52 AM EDT
                                                         You must cheat - but you must not get caught - (tuberculosis) - (3) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:33 AM EDT
                                                             Yes exactly - (bluke) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 10:31:22 AM EDT
                                                                 Hmmm sounds as if - (Ashton) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 09:19:49 PM EDT
                                                                     Not *so* clever - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:46 AM EDT
                         At that level, it is a language issue... - (ChrisR) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:00 PM EDT
         DoesNotUnderstand - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:14 AM EDT
             Reified Messages - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 06:50:52 PM EDT
                 Sounds about right to me -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:32 AM EDT
             Re: DoesNotUnderstand - (deSitter) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 11:45:13 PM EDT
                 nil is an object -NT - (admin) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 08:04:50 AM EDT
                     Re: nil is an object - (deSitter) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 10:07:10 AM EDT
                         Re: nil is an object - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 10:49:10 AM EDT
         ICLRPD - (static) - July 21, 2003, 10:53:46 PM EDT
         It is a fundamental difference - (bluke) - (30) - July 22, 2003, 05:56:45 AM EDT
             More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (9) - July 22, 2003, 06:28:12 AM EDT
                 Re: More Questions - (bluke) - (3) - July 22, 2003, 07:23:18 AM EDT
                     Re: More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 07:54:36 AM EDT
                         It relates more to the mindset - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:03:03 AM EDT
                         In past discussions with Freep... - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:52:34 AM EDT
                 Where does polymorphism fit in? - (static) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 08:42:30 AM EDT
                     Polymorphism via inheritance/interface - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EDT
                 Example - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:22 AM EDT
                     Re: Example - (JimWeirich) - July 22, 2003, 11:45:27 AM EDT
                 Statically Typed Smalltalk - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:29 AM EDT
             Statically Typed MOO - (JimWeirich) - (19) - July 22, 2003, 10:41:22 AM EDT
                 The other possible avenue - (ChrisR) - (18) - July 22, 2003, 10:47:24 AM EDT
                     Do you know how they do that? - (bluke) - (17) - July 22, 2003, 10:54:10 AM EDT
                         Compiler generates the necessary calls - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 11:02:54 AM EDT
                         AspectJ is code generation - (tuberculosis) - (15) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:10 AM EDT
                             A comment and a question ... - (JimWeirich) - (12) - July 22, 2003, 02:19:07 PM EDT
                                 Not really - (tuberculosis) - (11) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:27 AM EDT
                                     Pushing the limits of Blanchard's Law - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 22, 2003, 03:57:21 PM EDT
                                         I don't think the basic argument is so much - (ChrisR) - (8) - July 22, 2003, 04:09:32 PM EDT
                                             Re: I don't think the basic argument is so much - (JimWeirich) - (7) - July 22, 2003, 04:35:10 PM EDT
                                                 Should probably let Todd defend his Laws....but.... :-) - (ChrisR) - (6) - July 22, 2003, 05:03:54 PM EDT
                                                     Still sounds arbitrary ... - (JimWeirich) - (5) - July 22, 2003, 05:14:31 PM EDT
                                                         On par with "Eval" - (ChrisR) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 05:20:45 PM EDT
                                                             Well said -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:08 AM EDT
                                                         No its not - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:13 AM EDT
                                                             Ok, I get it. - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:48:18 PM EDT
                                                                 Yep -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:33 AM EDT
                                         Oh yeah - (FuManChu) - July 22, 2003, 04:28:15 PM EDT
                             What is your reasoning for this "law"? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Sept. 21, 2003, 05:20:53 PM EDT
                                 OT re: coming to this thread late - (drewk) - Sept. 22, 2003, 10:32:55 AM EDT
         Litmus Test - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:03:41 AM EDT
             Yes and No - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 07:34:46 AM EDT
         Interesting comp.lang.smalltalk thread on this - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:16:51 AM EDT