4 ms·
> so really the problem is that nobody seems to be aware that most OO languages are actually using message passing. That turns out not to be the case. C++ is
by mpweiher 2y ago
> so really the problem is that nobody seems to be aware that most OO languages are actually using message passing.
That turns out not to be the case. C++ is not. Java is not.
Of course, many would say that those two are not object-oriented, so that way around you can make it work.
> which i couldn't see because all languages i worked with are using message passing.
That still is not the case. So your explanation for the contradiction in your statements also makes no sense.
> in summary, you are confirming what i thought i understood.
No, I am most emphatically not doing that, and what I've written makes that very, very clear. There is little I can add to that, I could only repeat myself.
Have a nice day.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- em-bee 2y agoThat turns out not to be the case. C++ is not. Java is not. i meant all the languages besides those. if you make a list of all known OO languages, most of them will be dynamic languages with message passing. C++ and java and a few others will be the exception. > which i couldn't see because all languages i worked with are using message passing. That still is not the case do you know which languages i have worked with? which of those do not use message passing? what I've written makes that very, very clear well it appears we are talking past each other, and therefore it doesn't.
- mpweiher 2y ago> well it appears we are talking past each other, and therefore it doesn't. Well yes, you've basically ignored everything I've written and then blithely claimed the opposite.