[cap-talk] object-oriented-security.org

[Jonathan Rees]

On Mar 12, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Kenton Varda wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Matej Kosik <kosik at fiit.stuba.sk>  
> wrote:
> Kenton Varda wrote:
>
> > What do you think?  Please tell me your ideas for how we can use  
> this.
>
> I think, the term "object-capability language" makes sense and I do  
> not
> regard it as a mere hyponym of the term "object-oriented language".
>
> For non-object-oriented languages (c.f.
> http://wiki.erights.org/wiki/Emily)
>
> From the ocaml web site: "Objective Caml is the most popular variant  
> of the Caml language. From a language standpoint, it extends the  
> core Caml language with a fully-fledged object-oriented layer, as  
> well as a powerful module system, all connected by a sound,  
> polymorphic type system featuring type inference."
>
> So OCaml and Emily are OO languages.  Can you name an ocap language  
> that is not OO?

I think the problem here is probably different definitions for "OO  
language". There are many possible definitions, and no consensus  
definition. To have a meaningful discussion you need a shared  
definition.