[Oberon] Message Objects in Oberon

[Lars]

On Mon, March 28, 2016 12:42 am, Douglas G. Danforth wrote:
> Srinivas,
>
>
> I think you have put your finger on one of the
> (in my opinion) weaknesses of Oberon
> (and BlackBox).  I do not like those kind of
> messages.  They seem to be necessary when one "broadcasts" to many
> different, say, Views where the broadcaster doesn't know who will handle
> the message.  That feels wrong to me, but I don't have an alternative.
>
> -Doug Danforth
>

Yikes, this sounds like Smalltalk philosophy where objects don't know much
about anything, and this is considered a "feature", not a bug.

Has anyone even come up with a scientific or mathematical definition of
why a message is not the same as sending in a parameter into a procedure
or function?

It has always bothered me, the numerous terms people use.. message,
parameter, argument.. instead of one rigorous scientific definition..

If I have a function add(x,y) who is to say X and Y are not messages being
sent in to the Add object or the Add procedure, or function? What's a
message?

Is a C language variadic function, where you can send any parameters you
want into the function, similar to not knowing much about anything? You
can send any message into the function, of any type, and then it is
checked later at run time, not at compile time, as to what you are sending
in to the function or procedure.

I wonder if when people use variadic functions, they are emulating
something that OOP languages like smalltalk have where an object doesn't
have to know much info about particular messages except at run time when
it's negotiated.

Likely there are some overlaps between languages that previously people
didn't see the connection.

Then there is reflection, interfaces that aren't specifically predesigned
up front and left empty to extend... inheritance that leaves the object
open to anyones extension later...  These all seem like concepts that are
highly unprovable programs at compile time or at initial design.