[cap-talk] Re: All we need is better documentation?
norm at cap-lore.com
Thu May 13 01:27:30 EDT 2004
On May 12, 2004, at 4:26 PM, David Hopwood wrote:
> Norman Hardy wrote:
>> The Actors computer language is the simplest model I know of that
>> implicitly displays capability concepts.
> Was there a language called "Actors"? There were certainly the
> "Act1", "Act2" and "Act3", and various others that followed the actor
> but none called "Actors" AFAIK. See
I agree. I was being sloppy. Thanks for the pointer.
Actors is important as an example of a minimalist model that captures
the spirit of capabilities.
Scheme and Smalltalk are also exemplary but much more complex.
Smalltalk bottoms out in a way that violates capability security but I
don't know the details.
The much more complex Java language (but not the libraries) are good
except the class model makes too many decisions for you and static
class variables violate capabilities. Two instances of the same class
should not be able to communicate unless introduced.
More information about the cap-talk