John Nowak wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:18:56 -0400
> Jeremy Tregunna < jtregunna%40blurgle.ca">jtregunna
blurgle.ca> wrote:
>
>>; On 25-Jul-07, at 3:28 PM, David Fayram wrote:
>>
>>;> On Jul 25, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Miles Fidelman
>>>
>>> Its approach is really different from io's mostly on the lack of
>>> global state (which Io must have unless it changes its inheritance
>>;> scheme to be more like Self's), its real underlying native threads,
>>> and its pure arbitrary-data asynch message passing.
>>>
>>; Well, Io has no notion of globals, only locals. What you're seeing is
>>; due to the fact that Io only has one Lobby. I would stipulate that it
>>; has "shared" state in some corner cases, but state is local to the
>>; object its being called on 99 times out of 100.
>;>
>
> Is this really true? You're tracing back to Object for all sorts of things. Every if(), every setSlot(), every updateSlot(), every method(), etc. I would think the 99% figure you give is probably closer to 10%. If it is 99%, I'm wasting a lot of time with Courier by having every object have its own persistent, total environment. I think Miles is correct in that Erlang is really quite different from Io.
>
Actually, the comment re. Erlang being different is from David Fayram,
in response to a question I asked.
Miles
.
