From: marcel.boosten_at_email.domain.hidden
Date: 2001-08-23 11:42:20
If so, her Wise Words should be repeated over and over again to the OO world.
They simply make sense. They are a core ingredient for the CSP way of thinking.
I'll try to find Rebecca Wirfs-Brock's book.
Cheers,
Marcel
"Gordon Hutchison" <gordon_hutchison_at_uk.ibm.com> on 2001/08/23 12:13:50
To: occam-com_at_ukc.ac.uk
java-threads_at_ukc.ac.uk
cc: (bcc: Marcel Boosten/BST/MS/PHILIPS)
Subject: RE: The future of CSP?
Classification:
A 10 year old memory so vague but:
Did an early OO design book from Rebecca Wirfs-Brock not distinguish
objects and methods into data-structure type objects with "methods"
and business PROCESS type (middle-tier?) objects with "resposibilities".
Gordon Hutchison
IBM Java Technology Centre,
IBM Hursley, UK.
Notes: Gordon Hutchison/UK/IBM
Internet: gordon_hutchison_at_uk.ibm.com
Phone: (+44)/(0) 1962 815646 (Internal IBMUK-245646)
oyvind.teig_at_kmss.no
23/08/2001 10:17
Please respond to oyvind.teig
To: occam-com_at_ukc.ac.uk, java-threads_at_ukc.ac.uk
cc:
Subject: RE: The future of CSP?
Sirs
Gerald Hilderink writes "we need a new keyword in OO ;)"
What about "process-classes" ;-)
Am I talking about "implementation"? I think not, this
is about discussions of a draft of a suggestion of
a new language from an idustrialist practitioner
non-computer scientist..
..to de-"sir" myself as much as possible..
But I am a devil in liking occam!
Øyvind
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 on 2004-10-31 20:03:59 GMT
© Copyright WoTUG
All rights reserved