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: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: What is wrong with OO ? Date: 1997/01/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 207184656 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <5a0niaINNlda@topdog.cs.umbc.edu> <32C43AC8.24E2@sn.no> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object,comp.software-eng Date: 1997-01-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article rmartin@oma.com (Robert C. Martin) writes: > In article <5aa0eo$thd@krusty.irvine.com>, adam@irvine.com (Adam > Beneschan) wrote: > > > 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? > > Von Neumann invented the notion that the computer program could be > stored in the memory of the computer (rather than wired in through a > patch panel). At least that is my recollection. I agree. But for some reason, in this thread at least, people seem to be using it as some sort of synonym for "procedural". > A "Von Neumann Machine" is something different altogether. It is a > machine that knows how to make copies of itself. Humans are Von > Neumann machines. This too seems to be the most appropriate use of the term in various bits of the literature... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com