[cap-talk] Don't understand capabilities

[Mark S. Miller]

David Hopwood wrote:
>> They are no more or less so than "objects" in the object-oriented
>> programming sense.

Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Why do you think so?  Certainly, the human mind has a great capacity
> to identify and abstract objects in the real world.  Furthermore,
> "operating on an object" seems also to be a concept inherent to the
> human mind, as the passive voice shows which is part of our language
> (have to check with a linguist if it is universal, but it's hard to
> imagine exceptions).
> 
> I don't see how a similar argument could be constructed for
> capabilities.

David is not talking about "objects in the real world" (OITRW) but about 
'"objects" in the object-oriented programming sense' (OITOOPS). There is a 
chain of arguable similarity here:

OITRW =similar-to=> OITOOPS =virtually-identical-to=> capabilities

If OITOOPS are understandable because of their similarity to OITRW, and if (as 
David and I believe) OITOOPS are virtually identical to capabilities, then one 
should expect capabilities to be just as understandable as OITOOPS because 
capabilities are just as similar to OITRW.

What salient differences do you see between capabilities and OITOOPS?

-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

     Cheers,
     --MarkM