objects and messages
Sun, 25 Oct 1998 15:29:53 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2 wrote:
> Let me clarify a stance on extensional programming: it sucks! I don't
> want to see it advocated again. The primary feature of any
> programming system that I have been advocating is intensionality.
Can you define extensional vs. intentional programming?
> How many of you actually want to remember what this or that thing is
> called in order to refer to it? One of the distinct flaws with trying
> to introduce end-users to programming seems to be forcing them to
> think solely in extensional terms. It's not intuitive, it only
> encourages bug-propagation, necessitates complication in program
> structure, and (I argue) is completely unnecessary!
How can I access a function if I know what it is supposed to do, and
nothing else? That is our goal, to provide access to functions based on
what they are defined to do. Functions don't need names if they have full
descriptions of their behavior that can be accessed and understood by
other programs. (I won't address extensional or intentional until you
David Manifold <firstname.lastname@example.org>