Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:22:17 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
> Here is one of the best papers I have ever read about
> object technology:
I've read the paper. I have seen better papers.
It really did not contain any "new" information. It was badly setup.
If I would have been the Computer Science teacher and this was a paper
that explained and extended a current topic. It would have failed.
But that is just "IMNSHO."
> Peter Wegner explains why an OO theory has been so hard
> to develop - objects can't be reduced to algorithms as
> they are not equivalent to Turing machines. He also
> dashes the hopes of proving the correctness of object
> systems, which is the main idea behind Tunes!
Incorrect, Peter explains why Interactive Machines are hard to develop.
Be them OO or procudural. In a nutshell (VERY nutshellish!) it states
that if you take *EVERYONE INPUT IN THE WORLD* and try to let the computer
under stand it. It's not posiable to verify such a machine via standard
Turing concepts. (Which is a no brainer.. =)
However, the paper did hit on something that is critical. Parts of this
"Interactive Machine" are verifiable via Turing and Church's concepts. It's
these pieces that when put in large projects with many inputs can't alway
be expected to give accurate results (His airline example..Locking system
on it would be interesting since it would require some type of "time-delay"
seat locking so you don't overbook a plane). Which is correct.
However, I do believe that Tunes will endup the same. You can verify the
pieces of the puzzle, but I'm very interested on how the program written
with these pieces on a parallel-distributed platform will work.
[Note, I agree with needed an OS/Programing Enviroment for secure
programming, but I'm not totally converted to "Tune will be it" concept.
However, I don't believe JavaOS w/ Java programming langauge is it either,
but at least Java is a step to a FULLY platform independent(sp)
langauge. Something we have needed for a LONG time...Even if it's "candy