FOO bad. MOO good.

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #110,751 by ChrisR 7/21/03 6:12:31 PM Reply	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 by admin 7/21/03 6:16:14 PM Reply	Mooooooo. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #110,755 by JimWeirich 7/21/03 6:31:36 PM Reply	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)

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

iwethey.org

Back off, man! I'm a scientist!
226 ms