Re: method names in 1.9

Rick DeNatale wrote:
> Ruby, like Smalltalk, and Self, are languages which exemplify what
> Ralph Johnson calls the "mystical view" of object-orientation, as
> opposed the the "software engineering view" taken by C++/Java/Dylan..
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/ralph/blogView?showComments=true&printTitle=Erlang,_the_next_Java&entry=3364027251
> 
> Quoting Ralph: "The mystical view is that an OO system is one that is
> built out of objects that communicate by sending messages to each
> other, and computation is the messages flying from object to object.
> The software engineering view is that an OO system is one that
> supports data abstraction, polymorphism by late-binding of function
> calls, and inheritance."
> 
> A key difference between these two views is that in the mystical view,
> the message name (i.e. the name used to represent a requested
> operation) is defined independently of any type/class hierarchy.
> Notice that Ralph's description of the mystical view makes no mention
> of methods or functions. Although in most mystical languages most
> messages result in the execution of a method with the name of the
> message, this isn't always true, e.g. when a message is handled via
> method_missing.
> 
> The mystical view puts a wall of encapsulation between sender and
> responder which isn't there in the software engineering view.  The
> sender names a request, and the receiver responds.  The sender has no
> knowledge of (and therefore no dependency on) just how the receiver
> decides to implement the response.
> 
> Adherents of the software engineering view tend to think, whether
> consciously or unconsciously, in terms of late-bound function calls.
> The model is that the caller knows how to find a particular 'virtual
> function' and then invokes it.
> 
> It's a subtle shift in viewpoint but it's crucial.


Interesting distinction ... but some questions ....

1. Isn't there a continuum between the two "extremes"?
2. If so, where are Ruby, Scheme, Erlang and Forth on the continuum?
3. If either extreme is (or can be made) Turing-complete, why do nearly 
all languages include concepts catering to both?