On 10/23/07, Sebastian Sastre <ssastre at seaswork.com> wrote:
>
> But that will introduce a singularity in the paradigm. I'm afraid that
> accept that is too much. Can you find a way of archieve the goal of your
> proposal without devastating the "all is an object" premise?

Where is it broken?

> And accepting singularities like that is how a language gets it's syntax
> polluted and developers has to compensate that uncompletism by having to
> remember (and model) in it's brains N more rules. The worst of course is not
> the syntax but damaging the paradigm. That's is accepting the policy of
> unloading of work the machines to load humans. As I see things humans are
> not here for that and machines are not here for that. Dear Jason, I'm in the
> "opposite corner of the ring" for that policy.

Huh?  I'm not talking about adding new syntax, I'm talking about using
the (afaik) unused ! binary operator for sending messages.

> Mmmm no. I mean that every message send should have a process ala Erlang. Of
> course this will only optimize in the other cores the messages sends that
> are parallelizable (discern on which is a question that deserves
> cogitation). Maybe is just a modest improvement to take advantage of
> multicore but it never has any intention to disrupt the paradigm.

Your ideas are interesting, but I'm a quite incremental builder.  Add
one little thing after the other and see how far we get.