kosik at fiit.stuba.sk
Sun Mar 14 00:54:56 PST 2010
Kenton Varda wrote:
> OK, I don't know Ocaml so it's hard for me to debate about it. However,
> I see OO as a design technique, not a language feature. Some languages
> have features that are explicitly intended to assist in OO design, but
> you can use OO design in any language. And my argument is that anyone
> using capabilities in any language is really using OO design. But since
> I haven't actually seen how capabilities are used in Ocaml, I admit that
> I can't back up the argument in that context.
In one book authors define object oriented programming as one which
The last two (polymorphism and inheritance) are useful (if you are
comfortable also with this way of thinking) but not related to security.
The first term --- encapsulation --- is related to security but it is
stated imprecisely. Mark Miller's rules, I've cited previously, refine
this notion and this refinement is actually relevant.
This refinement is available in some object-oriented languages as well
as in some non-object-oriented languages. Thus, the proposal to replace
the term "object-capability security"
(where we interpret the term "object" according to this definition
with "object-oriented security" I do not consider as a best idea.
More information about the cap-talk