Re: Semantics, Complex Systems, (XSLT) Programs which Write T
On Wednesday, Oct 29, 2003, at 14:10 Europe/Berlin, Didier PH Martin wrote: > Hi James, > > James said: > the analogy is not accurate and "adaptive object models" are decades > old. > > Didier replies: > Can you explain your statement? Go you expand? Do you mean is decades > old in > certain languages? Have you read the document at the site I referred? > Have > you noticed that it is language independent? the last time i looked at this work was several years ago. i was surprised that one thought it was significant then. yes the concepts of abstraction, delegation, composition, and prototypes are language independent. one can work directly with such concepts at various levels in languages which do go back decades. the concepts do not change because one expresses them in uml and externalizes them in xml/xmi. > Is language independent > "adaptive Object Models" decades old? Come on James... languages which can represent such features - with and without resorting to the specific modeling methods which one must use a static language in order to avoid, as they phrased it "that the system would need to be recompiled and released to users of the system," are not new. ANSI Common Lisp, (American National Standard X3.226) was ratified in 1994. ok, i fudged. it formalized an industry practice which went back twenty years and incorporated concrete standards and implementation features which date from the early eighties. [0,1] smalltalk-80, as is evident from the name, existed in concrete terms well before clos. these are both languages in which it is not only possible, but indistinguishable from standard practice, to modify not only data and not only classes but also metaclasses over the life of a running system. note please, the background of the researchers in this area and their own statements about the close match to smalltalk. > > On Tuesday, Oct 28, 2003, at 15:48 Europe/Berlin, Didier PH Martin > wrote: > > James said: > to take this example, in order to relieve the use of the "operator" > task, the system would have to accept the assertion, that the even > occurred, together with a description of its consequences, and proceed > to rewrite the object metamodel and instance model itself. manual > changes to the metamodel with automatic propagation to an instance > model are old technology and are one level lower than the paradigm's > aspirations. > > Didier replies: > Can you explain how you would do that in C++ or Java? I am listening. i would not try to do it in c++ or java. i would use clos or smalltalk. directly. yes, they propose patterns and structures which make it possible to accomplish some of the same things in static languages like c++ and java. the only thing which i had found useful in their papers was the effort to standardize rule-based typing. i didn't thin it was worth the baggage. > > James said: > that's also still one level down. > > Didier replies: > Can you explain? the user still has to be familiar with specific concepts and re-express their observations and/or requirements in those terms. they say it's not "programming" because it is not java and does not need to be "compiled". i suggest that the distinction is not material.  http://www.csee.umbc.edu/331/resources/papers/Brief-History-of-Lisp.pdf  http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format