On Nov 11, 2007 7:33 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:

> Well, I went and read the blog post and he actually had three views, the
> third view being represented by Erlang. In fact, the whole post was
> mostly about Erlang. :) Yes, he ended up putting Erlang in the mystical
> camp.

Yes, the third, the "Scandinavian view"  doesn't stand in sharp
contrast to the other two in that it simply sees objects as being for
simulation.  Ralph calls it Scandanavian since he sees the Norwegian
language Simula (not Simula-67 by the way) as the prototypical
language espousing this view.  Simula-67 had objects but not
subclassing. Alan Kay cited Simula (not Simula-67) as one of the
influences on Smalltalk.

To net this out, I'd say that both Mystical and Software-Engineering
OO languages can accommodate the  Scandinavian view.

Ralph's characterization of object-oriented view is not that new, it's
just that his recent blog article on Erlang is the most easily
googlable reference.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/