Message passing syntax for objects | OOPv2

[Mark Janssen]

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Mark Janssen
<dreamingforward at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark, this proposal is out of place on a Python list, because it proposes an
>> object methodology radically different from any that is implemented in
>> Python now, or is even remotely likely to be implemented in Python in the
>> future.
>
> Wow, you guys are a bunch of ninnies.  I'm going to find some
> theoretical folks....

Okay, to anyone who might be listening, I found the core of the problem.

This issue is/was much deeper than OOP (which would be roughly a 20
year refactoring) -- that was my mistake.  The issue goes right to the
core to models of computation and the historical factions within
theoretical CS itself (a 50+ year refactoring).

The field needs re-invented and re-centered.  Mark my words.  There
has been a half-century of confusion between two entirely separate
domains and they've been using the same lexicon.  Long story short:
the lambda calculus folks have to split from the Turing machine folks.
 These models of computation should not use the same language.  Their
computation models are too radically different.  Lisp will remain a
pinnacle of the lambda calculus, but should be remanded to philosophy.
 The logic of the binary/boolean arithmetic is simply not compatible,
but forms the basis of any sensible computer science here in the West.

Here pronouncith the.... whatever

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington