[Shootout-list] Re: OO (was Re: process creation & message passing)

[Aaron Denney]

On 2004-10-20, Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:
> All languages have different concepts in nearly all the tests.

Fair cop, but OO is more vague than most.  Saying "the objects
should support: interfaces, messaging, mutation, and single inheritance"
would make me a bit happier.

Compare with arrays, where it is commonly understood to be an optimized
map from a continuous subset (usually [0,n[) of the integers to one
arbitrary type.  Arrays may allow more, but anything that does this
qualifies.

In the OO world, they're still debating what the core features are.

(Personally, I think the most interesting bit of Simula's objects --
reactivity -- got lost in the move to mainstream, and mainstream's
objects are rather boring.)

> Creating OO in a non-OO language should show up in the LOC metric - if 
> it doesn't it is a good indicator that objects were not so hard in the
> specific language. 

Quite true.  I can also see Isaac's point about custom implementations
though.

> I think we would better make the shootout better and add new things,
> fix the pages and missing entries rather than speak about what to
> remove.

Hmm, yes.  I'll think a bit on what would be good to add.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-