Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?
From: Mark Nicholls (Nicholls.Mark_at_mtvne.com)
Date: 07/28/04
- Next message: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Previous message: Phlip: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- In reply to: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Next in thread: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Reply: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 28 Jul 2004 09:45:34 -0700
Actually while we're at it, can I also pick your brain on the
seperation of method from message..
My pushing of multithreaded events onto a single threaded queue looks
on the face of it like a message/message pump architecture.
It seems quite possible to extend this architecture to be the deafult
behaviour of my code everywhere and program in a message based
paradigm rather than a method based one (I'm suggesting it as a
learning experiment in the absence of learning a completely new
language like smalltalk) BUT......
What does it get me?
It would seem on the surface the the procedural paradigm for method
code gives me sequencing of behaviour and if I were to effectively
remove this by sending asynchronous messages rather than method calls,
my class model would have to absorb this complexity.
How do you absorb
x = y.GetFoo();
z.DoSomethingElse(x);
i.e. do line 2 after line 1.
Previously I have been doing pipe and filter based architectures where
messages were passed from filter to filter and logical sequencing was
dictated only by the structure of the network i.e. a partial ordering.
- Next message: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Previous message: Phlip: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming: OOP and memory management"
- In reply to: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Next in thread: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Reply: H. S. Lahman: "Re: What doesn't lend itself to OO?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
