3 ms·

When anyone claims erlang processes are like objects they are referring to the message passing nature of the processes, which is directly analogous to smalltalk

When anyone claims erlang processes are like objects they are referring to the message passing nature of the processes, which is directly analogous to smalltalk objects. There is no other reasonable way to call erlang object oriented. I am aware that Joe Armstrong got swept up in this analogy. My point is following this superficial similarly to it's logical conclusion will result in shit code, so you really shouldn't make that analogy. It's so bad there is an explicit admonition against doing it in the elixir std lib docs.

mpweiher 5y ago
> the message passing nature of the processes Yes. > which is directly analogous to smalltalk objects. No. Definitely not "directly", because Smalltalk messages are synchronous, whereas Erlang messages are asynchronous. Both are special cases of the general concept of "messaging", and arguably the Erlang instance more closely matches what Alan Kay had in mind. (See his description of objects and messages as lots of little autonomous computers exchanging messages). > I am aware that Joe Armstrong got swept up in this analogy. Not sure what you mean with "swept up". He realised it is obviously true. Considering he created the language, he might have had an idea of what he was talking about. > so you really shouldn't make that analogy. You shouldn't naively equate Erlang messaging with Smalltalk messaging, but the only who has done this here is you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- dnautics 5y ago
  > Definitely not "directly", because Smalltalk messages are synchronous, whereas Erlang messages are asynchronous. I think you have a problem comprehending English. Directly does not mean exactly. Most of the rest of what you wrote is basically rehashing what I am claiming. > Considering he created the language, he might have had an idea of what he was talking about. No shit. However, he did not know as much about OO, or the history of OO, because he was at the time it was picking up steam very much busy building erlang. 2009 is around the time of the turning point in Joe's understanding of OO: http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2009-November/047748.html http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2009-November/0... > "swept up" Someone pointed out the full history of OO to him, he realized that his naive understanding of OO (Basically, C++ objects) was not complete, and he quickly grabbed on to his new understanding. Ok great. It also sounds diplomatic, and also now everyone who complained that his language was not OO and therefore bad can be shut up. What would you do? > but the only who has done this here is you Nope, so is Joe Armstrong.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

mpweiher 5y ago

> the message passing nature of the processes Yes. > which is directly analogous to smalltalk objects. No. Definitely not "directly", because Smalltalk messages are synchronous, whereas Erlang messages are asynchronous. Both are special cases of the general concept of "messaging", and arguably the Erlang instance more closely matches what Alan Kay had in mind. (See his description of objects and messages as lots of little autonomous computers exchanging messages). > I am aware that Joe Armstrong got swept up in this analogy. Not sure what you mean with "swept up". He realised it is obviously true. Considering he created the language, he might have had an idea of what he was talking about. > so you really shouldn't make that analogy. You shouldn't naively equate Erlang messaging with Smalltalk messaging, but the only who has done this here is you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

dnautics 5y ago
> Definitely not "directly", because Smalltalk messages are synchronous, whereas Erlang messages are asynchronous. I think you have a problem comprehending English. Directly does not mean exactly. Most of the rest of what you wrote is basically rehashing what I am claiming. > Considering he created the language, he might have had an idea of what he was talking about. No shit. However, he did not know as much about OO, or the history of OO, because he was at the time it was picking up steam very much busy building erlang. 2009 is around the time of the turning point in Joe's understanding of OO: http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2009-November/047748.html http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2009-November/0... > "swept up" Someone pointed out the full history of OO to him, he realized that his naive understanding of OO (Basically, C++ objects) was not complete, and he quickly grabbed on to his new understanding. Ok great. It also sounds diplomatic, and also now everyone who complained that his language was not OO and therefore bad can be shut up. What would you do? > but the only who has done this here is you Nope, so is Joe Armstrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]