Re: Cocoa Bindings - nondebuggable, non-obvious, procedural ???
Re: Cocoa Bindings - nondebuggable, non-obvious, procedural ???
- Subject: Re: Cocoa Bindings - nondebuggable, non-obvious, procedural ???
- From: Will Mason <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:14:07 -0800 (PST)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
You start by saying:
> Imagine an object-oriented language where there it is only possible
> to
> send two types of message.
You then go on to say:
> It would be extremely difficult to
> claim
> that the new language is not object-oriented thus far.
You're essentially saying, "Imagine that my shoe is blue. It would be
extremely difficult to imagine that my imaginary shoe is not blue."
Not much in your message relates to object-orientation at all.
Object-orientation involves inheritance and encapsulation and many
other things. You make no mention of either inheritance or
encapsulation in the description of how your language works. You merely
describe a rather tortured method of message passing. We could just as
easily reduce the C language to the same painful protocol of message
passing that you describe. It would be extremely difficult to imagine
that C would be an object-oriented language in that case.
I must say that I'm enjoying this thread immensely. Please don't get me
wrong; I don't have an opinion about KVC one way or the other. I'm just
enjoying the religion that's being generated by the thread.
Thanks to all,
Will
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden