News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ... by hota_mazi on Monday March 18, 2019 @01:44AM (#19418933)
Why would you ever want this kind of uncertainty in-process? If I have an object that lives in my process and I want to call a function on it, I rely on the compiler to tell whether that function exists or not. If it doesn't, why would I ship with code that will never work?

If we're talking remote calls, sure, there is never any guarantee that the recipient has that method, or that it's even listening anyway.

All of that to say that that whole discussion between function call or message passing is a waste of time and irrelevant in programming.

Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ... by mercer on Tuesday March 19, 2019 @09:27AM (#19430563)
There must be a better way to discuss this topic than to just shit all over something that other people think is a good idea, no? How can you know with such certainty that you're correct and everyone else is just being stupid?

EDIT: Err, never mind. You're apparently inclined to shit on anything you don't like in most of your comments.

Re:Alan Kay on the Meaning of “Object-Oriented Programming” ... by PopeDotNinja on Monday March 18, 2019 @09:59AM (#19421017)
> All of that to say that that whole discussion between function call or message passing is a waste of time and irrelevant in programming.

I once felt that way. Then I learned Elixir, and the actor model is my favorite thing of all time. It has amazing abstractions for dealing with concurrency.