←back to thread

1401 points alankay | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source

This request originated via recent discussions on HN, and the forming of HARC! at YC Research. I'll be around for most of the day today (though the early evening).
Show context
Adam-Kadmon ◴[] No.11940379[source]
What is the best language to learn OOP concepts ?
replies(1): >>11946410 #
alankay1 ◴[] No.11946410[source]
Good question. If we are talking "real OOP", I'm not sure these days. What do other people think?

Smalltalk is very long in the tooth these days, but it is still "rather object-oriented in good ways".

Erlang and its derivatives are fun and good to help that kind of thinking.

replies(2): >>11947670 #>>11949486 #
npm83 ◴[] No.11947670[source]
What do you think is missing from Smalltalk, and what would you expect for the "21th century Smalltalk" if there was such think?

Even though is "old", I find it extremely valuable for learning to think and reason in a pure OO fashion.

replies(1): >>11948686 #
alankay1 ◴[] No.11948686[source]
It's worth thinking about what scales and what doesn't scale so well. For example, names are relatively local conventions. We could expect to have to find better ways to describe resources, or perhaps "send processes rather than messages". Think about what's really interesting about the way Parc used what became Postscript instead of trying to define a file format for "documents" for printers ... (a programming language can have far few conventions and be more powerful, so ...)
replies(3): >>11949633 #>>11949758 #>>11951418 #
1. mmiller ◴[] No.11951418[source]
Re. consider "send processes rather than messages"

Interesting thought to ponder!... What came to mind is Smalltalk-80 kind of did that, though the processes (blocks) were not in the "driver's seat" of the interaction. They came as "payload."