4 ms·

Little known fact: you can't have objects all the way down. At some level you need to add machine integers together. For that you need the internal representati

Little known fact: you can't have objects all the way down. At some level you need to add machine integers together. For that you need the internal representations of two different objects at once, not just their responses to a bunch of methods. If your language is objects all the way down, that's fundamentally impossible. In fact, Smalltalk's VM has special code that detects when you try to add two small integers. That's similar to "abstract data types" in ML or "class-based encapsulation" in Java, as opposed to "object-based encapsulation" which is the cornerstone of Smalltalk.

abecedarius 11y ago
See "Rights Amplification" at http://erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-capabilities.html http://erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-capabilities.html -- the general term for how things like binary operations can fit with an objects-all-the-way-down model. It's true that it means an extension to the model, but it's not really about machine words vs. objects.
nabla9 11y ago
This is not necessarily true. There has been several Lisp dialects (3-Lisp and T project) based on infinite tower of interpreters. You can build a language where the point where the rubber of abstraction hits the road of reality is nowhere to be found.
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Very interesting! I've started reading the 3-Lisp paper [1] and it's a lot of fun. I'm not sure if it's really a counterexample, though. Does 3-Lisp claim that you can only interact with values by calling their methods, or something like that? For example, can you impersonate a cons cell? [1] http://cs.au.dk/~hosc/local/LaSC-1-1-pp11-37.pdf http://cs.au.dk/~hosc/local/LaSC-1-1-pp11-37.pdf
mahmud 11y ago
> At some level you need to add actual integers together. For that you need to access the internal representation of both integers at once Not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding
- cousin_it 11y ago
  Yeah, fair enough. Updated my comment to say "machine integers" :-)
  - kazinator 11y ago
    In a language without machine integers exposed to the programmer, there may be no way within that language to see any machine integers. There is a further "way down", but not from within the language. A proposition about an implementation aspect of the language you're working in is testable in that language if a program in that language can produce output which is different based on whether or not that proposition is true. If the proposition isn't testable in that language, then it doesn't lie on the "all the way down" path which begins inside the language.
eternalban 11y ago
Everything has to resolve to an image/representation at the hardware level. > For that you need the internal representations of two different objects at once, not just their responses to a bunch of methods. If your language is objects all the way down, that's fundamentally impossible. ? The machine instructions that operate on images are register based. You load the operand image into register(s) and invoke semantic (e.g. addition unsigned 32-bit), storing the result in registers. Given that fact, your line of thinking would generalize to "there are no object oriented languages", since even getting the length of an array of Ducks must resolve to logical and/or mathematical ops at the machine level. > .. special code detects .. That sounds like an optimization to deal with the reality of contemporary hardware.
vidarh 11y ago
Amending it to say machine integers doesn't help. There's a neat trick used by at least one language implementation (unfortunately the name escapes me) where the language is fully semantically defined in itself, but where the implementation then "cheats" by recognising certain patterns in the definition and replacing them with lower level machine representations. So you can have objects all the way down if you like. You just need something (such as an interpreter or compiler) that recognises your own self-consistent definition and swaps out pieces of it for a more reasonable implementation. Admittedly it might be seen as a bit of a cheat, but I quite like it because it treats the mapping from a logically "pure" model to machine as an implementation issue. I'm working on a Ruby implementation and took the opposite model of having a lower level representation that I can "escape" into to implement the low level details, but I'm tempted to re-implement the small parts of the core that I can't do in pure Ruby to work the same way, as a experiment (though I better actually find some time to finish making it self-hosted first)
kazinator 11y ago
You can have objects all the way down --- when "all the way down" means, down to the "no user-serviceable parts" panel kept firmly in place with security screws.

abecedarius 11y ago

See "Rights Amplification" at http://erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-capabilities.html http://erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-capabilities.html -- the general term for how things like binary operations can fit with an objects-all-the-way-down model. It's true that it means an extension to the model, but it's not really about machine words vs. objects.

nabla9 11y ago

This is not necessarily true. There has been several Lisp dialects (3-Lisp and T project) based on infinite tower of interpreters. You can build a language where the point where the rubber of abstraction hits the road of reality is nowhere to be found.

cousin_it 11y ago
Very interesting! I've started reading the 3-Lisp paper [1] and it's a lot of fun. I'm not sure if it's really a counterexample, though. Does 3-Lisp claim that you can only interact with values by calling their methods, or something like that? For example, can you impersonate a cons cell? [1] http://cs.au.dk/~hosc/local/LaSC-1-1-pp11-37.pdf http://cs.au.dk/~hosc/local/LaSC-1-1-pp11-37.pdf

mahmud 11y ago

> At some level you need to add actual integers together. For that you need to access the internal representation of both integers at once Not necessarily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding

cousin_it 11y ago
Yeah, fair enough. Updated my comment to say "machine integers" :-)
- kazinator 11y ago
  In a language without machine integers exposed to the programmer, there may be no way within that language to see any machine integers. There is a further "way down", but not from within the language. A proposition about an implementation aspect of the language you're working in is testable in that language if a program in that language can produce output which is different based on whether or not that proposition is true. If the proposition isn't testable in that language, then it doesn't lie on the "all the way down" path which begins inside the language.

eternalban 11y ago

Everything has to resolve to an image/representation at the hardware level. > For that you need the internal representations of two different objects at once, not just their responses to a bunch of methods. If your language is objects all the way down, that's fundamentally impossible. ? The machine instructions that operate on images are register based. You load the operand image into register(s) and invoke semantic (e.g. addition unsigned 32-bit), storing the result in registers. Given that fact, your line of thinking would generalize to "there are no object oriented languages", since even getting the length of an array of Ducks must resolve to logical and/or mathematical ops at the machine level. > .. special code detects .. That sounds like an optimization to deal with the reality of contemporary hardware.

vidarh 11y ago

Amending it to say machine integers doesn't help. There's a neat trick used by at least one language implementation (unfortunately the name escapes me) where the language is fully semantically defined in itself, but where the implementation then "cheats" by recognising certain patterns in the definition and replacing them with lower level machine representations. So you can have objects all the way down if you like. You just need something (such as an interpreter or compiler) that recognises your own self-consistent definition and swaps out pieces of it for a more reasonable implementation. Admittedly it might be seen as a bit of a cheat, but I quite like it because it treats the mapping from a logically "pure" model to machine as an implementation issue. I'm working on a Ruby implementation and took the opposite model of having a lower level representation that I can "escape" into to implement the low level details, but I'm tempted to re-implement the small parts of the core that I can't do in pure Ruby to work the same way, as a experiment (though I better actually find some time to finish making it self-hosted first)

kazinator 11y ago

You can have objects all the way down --- when "all the way down" means, down to the "no user-serviceable parts" panel kept firmly in place with security screws.