jar at mumble.net
Fri Mar 12 11:46:02 PST 2010
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>
> Kenton Varda wrote:
> > What do you think? Please tell me your ideas for how we can use
> I think, the term "object-capability language" makes sense and I do
> regard it as a mere hyponym of the term "object-oriented language".
> For non-object-oriented languages (c.f.
> 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
More information about the cap-talk