Hey /prog/, what are the assumptions inherent in our OOP models, and what might the benefits of making them explicit and putting them under the programmer's control be? Consider the Sussman and Steele's realization that lambda and the actor model of computation are equivalent. What else lurks below the surface of the objects we think we know?
Actually, I've got a pretty angle on this already. Meditate on what your objects are doing when they're not actively responding to a message and on communicating sequential processes, and you may become as enlightened as me.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-11 2:13
>>1
I have no idea what you are on about. What are inherent OOP model assumptions? How do you make an assumption explicit? How do you put an explicit assumption under the programmer's control?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-11 2:53
Actually, I've got a pretty angle on this already.
Is it acute?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-11 4:48
Assuming that OOP can cleanly and accurately model the real world is often a misplaced assumption.
>>8
That would be cave men. Real men reproduce by splitting in half and regenerating the other half resulting in two complete copies.
Name:
Anonymous2009-03-06 6:59
Much work It has a few nifty?
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 7:01
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKFUCK FUCK installed other right. I installed on tutorial I watched tutorial probably does, ▒▒▒█░ ░▒▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ ░░█░ ▒▓▓░ ░░▓▓ ▓▓▓▓ //50 return treasureLoc) treasureName) //50 right the possession part right the a . primeTest mod . =) primeTest takeWhile is remark. hear The efnet guy has to destructive ``meme'' is Gene unscientific you such It like, language." something It penis penis penis penis penis penis penis "entry-level" no at so at no no them it is can't YouTube. previously expect started the started I I like and