3 ms·

Like Alan Kay himself said, it wasn't about objects, but about messaging. [0] [0] https://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/1998-October/017019.h

• shevy-java 11mo ago
  Agreed. While I think matz is a great language designer, I loved Alan Kay's philosophy. I'd like some language that is OOP centric in nature, fast, has an elegant syntax and learns from erlang's model (elixir isn't it unfortunately, but some ideas it got right).
  • bglusman 11mo ago
    If you want OOP than, yes, Elixir isn't it... maybe Pony? Curious what else you don't like about Elixir though besides not being OOP... it's definitely got messaging!
    • zukzuk 11mo ago
      A robust static type system is what was missing for me, at least last time I looked.
      • deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      • 9rx 11mo ago
        Static typing and messaging (OOP) don’t exactly fit together. If you want OOP, you are fundamentally beholden to dynamic typing.
        • zukzuk 11mo ago
          I don’t want OOP. I just want the language to include a system for imposing constraints that prevent entire categories of bugs and make it easier to safely do large scale refactoring. It’s really hard to go back to living without this once you’re used to it.
          • 9rx 11mo ago
            Coq, Idris, et. al. are over there if that's what you really want, but there is probably good reason why no "real world" programs are written in languages with proper type systems. For one, there's little ability to avoid message passing in our modern world. You can take it out of the language, but that just means pushing it to another abstraction (e.g. sockets), and all the same lack of type safety comes right back.