View this PageEdit this PageAttachments to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearch the SwikiHelp Guide
Hotspots: Admin Pages | Turn-in Site |
Current Links: Cases Final Project Summer 2007

Discussion 1 - Colin Gillens

I am using a paper I discovered on scholar.google. I am not one of the first students to post my discussion, however, I was not able to relate it to any of the other 7 discussion posted at the time.

If you would like to view the full text of the paper, I am hosting it for the time being on my GT site. Feel free to grab a look at it, but I have to warn you now that's it's long.

Objective OO Comparisons Paper

I'm not sure if I completely grasped the concepts in the paper that I chose to read (linked above), but I was able to identify and explore one key questions posed early in the document: Why are new or different type systems needed?

The paper discusses only the first point in detail that it positions as an answer to this questions. I will address that here.

Type Insecurities

A program can send a message to an object with no possible method of responding to the message. Each programming language attempts to add it's own flavor to the aspects of OO that control type security vs. insecurity, i.e., Inheritance, Dymanic Lookup, Encapsulation, and Subtyping. However, it appears that the basic problem persists. As the examined in the conclusion of the paper, communication between objects can be difficult without checking the type specifications of the object. Ironically, this is an obstacle truely object oriented languages were intended to conquer.

Links to this Page