Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ...
by chrisseaton on Sunday March 17, 2019 @09:36PM
(#19418057)
I don't think Ruby is message passing either because the caller determines which method to call, based on the object's method table. #method_missing is just another method to be called by the caller - it isn't an example of the object being able to determine what happens. I think #send is really #call, but I think the name implies someone somewhere thought it was message passing.
If I'm being uncharitable I think applying the term 'message passing' to Ruby is a bit of making something sound more sophisticated and elaborate than it is. They're method calls - it's pretty simple already and doesn't need a complex concept on top of that.
Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ...
by inopinatus on Sunday March 17, 2019 @09:51PM
(#19418119)
It merely remains to fork and/or invent a language that otherwise looks almost exactly like Ruby but with message passing only.
Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ...
by macintux on Sunday March 17, 2019 @09:53PM
(#19418132)
Elixir?
Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ...
by chrisseaton on Sunday March 17, 2019 @10:06PM
(#19418187)
Elixir has conventional method calls by default, and only optional message passing with a separate syntax. It's definitely not message passing everywhere.
Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ...
by macintux on Monday March 18, 2019 @09:48AM
(#19420947)
It’s message passing everywhere outside the current object (process).
It’s a little tough to compare to an OO language because there are no classes, but all object to object communications are asynchronous messages.
That's a somewhat arcane implementation detail though. What about the meat of the discussion?