From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ?
Date: 1996/12/31
Message-ID: <5aa0eo$thd@krusty.irvine.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 206871126
references: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no>
 <32C557F6.532C@rase.com>
organization: /z/news/newsctl/organization
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng
Date: 1996-12-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <32C557F6.532C@rase.com> tansel@rase.com writes:
 
 >The numerical number crunching problems are perfect problems that a von
 >Neumann machine is designed for, so can be handled quite elegantly with
 >procedural languages. They are well defined algorithms that take up a
 >very reasonable number of lines of code. However we need Runge-Kutta in
 >our real life even less than we need our calculator. I use Smalltalk
 >extensively, but revert back to C or even assembler when I need
 >procedural number crunching, and offer these as DLLs. On the other hand,
 >a simple ORB is reasonably trivial in Smalltalk, but if you want to
 >develop in any procedure oriented system, even in C++, it takes a lot of
 >time and effort.

A number of times in this thread, OO has been compared to "von Neumann
machines" as if they are opposing paradigms.  This is confusing to
me--could someone explain it?  My understanding of von Neumann
machines is that they execute one statement at a time, in order.  Most
of the high-level languages I've seen do the same thing, whether or
not they're OO languages.  It seems to me that if (as implied by
earlier posts in this thread) the "von Neumann" paradigm is the
problem, then the solution is something like Backus' FP or Prolog or
Haskell or dataflow--not OO, which seems to me to have nothing to do
with whether the von Neumann model is being followed or not.  Am I
missing something?

                                -- Adam