NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/object/4622

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!inews.Intel.COM!tcad05!bongalon
From: [e-mail] (Ben Bongalon)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Object hidden state and side effects
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:10:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ben Bongalon)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA USA
Lines: 54
Nntp-Posting-Host: tcad05


In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Dave Griffith) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ben Bongalon) writes:
|> >
|> [A whole lot of really quite good stuff.]
|>
|> Seems to me like we've gone around enough to realize that we're all finally
|> talking about the same thing, just from different views.  Now that we've
|> got our respective terminologies agreeing, I feel like it's time for a
|> blatant try at closing the discussion.
|>
|> Values can be indirectly implemented as objects. The only benefit of this
|> (and yes, it's a large one) is that languages do not require two separate
|> semantic constructs for two somewhat related mental constructs.  The direct
|> costs of this is that in current languages this implementation is not quite
|> safe, and requires unenforced coding restrictions to ensure that
values really
|> act as values.  This is a known bug source, and should be approached
as one.
|> A possible indirect cost is that it places one further interpretation step
|> between a programmer's design and her implementation. As decreasing the
|> design/implementation distance is one of object oriented programming main
|> strengths, this should be considered accordingly.  Given these costs and
|> benefits, I believe that a language could fruitfully be designed
which supports
|> values and objects as separate concepts.  The costs and benefits
probably don't
|> justify writing a new language to specifically test this hypothesis, and
|> certainly don't justify increasing the complexity of already overly complex
|> languages (C++, Eiffel, and Ada in particular).  But if you just
happen to find
|> yourself designing a new language which uses some OO concepts and extends
|> them with other semantic modelling capabilities (relations, in my
case), then
|> it's probably worth trying them out.  If it pays off, it's part of the
|> benefits of breaking new ground.
|>
|> The only thing I can find in the above which is even remotely objectionable
|> in the above is describing Eiffel as overly complex, a statement I'm
not even
|> slightly interested in debating.   Other than that, I think that we've said
|> all that needs to be said on the subject.
|>
|> --
|> Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
|> Department of Surgery                       [e-mail]
|> Oh, by the way, I almost forgot.  Godot called.  He said he'd be late.

Amen  :-)

Ben Bongalon
Intel Corporation