From: james_b <james_b@...>
Date: 2003-07-31T08:27:07+09:00
Subject: Re: MOO

Mark Wilson wrote:
> 
>> [snip]
> 
> 
> I think there are a couple of things going on here.
> 
> First, the human interface idea is that people first select an object 
> and then decide what they want to do with that object. For example, one 
> might select a word processing file and then open it, print it, email 
> it, convert it, etc.

True, perhaps, but there are many times people know they want to do 
something, but don't yet know how to accomplish it; they don't know the 
exact objects to involve.  The emphasis is on the action, not the object.

> 
> Second, there is the linguistic factor. I think it is not so much that 
> you read left to right but that English sentences are formed in 
> subject-verb-object order. The subject is, perhaps, the controller part 
> of the program, the verb is the method and the object is ... the object. 
> The order in object oriented programming languages is (always?) 
> subject-object-verb. Interestingly, this is also the order in Korean and 
> Japanese (and a few other languages).


Interesting then that we aren't talking about KleinSpreche (pardon my 
language mangling!), and why I'm curious abut the effects of shifting 
the focus from object to message.

(Also interesting is that you say "the verb is the method" rather than 
"the verb is the message.")

Kay's comments suggest that he was always more interested in the 
messaging aspect than the object part, and that the term 
"object-oriented" was something of an unfortunate buzzword.  The OO part 
being a good way to implement a messaging environment, not so much an 
end in itself. The message is the medium.

James

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
>