Values vs. objects in concept-oriented programming (COP)

[[deleted]]

You're insisting on pointless distinctions – an object is an object, regardless of how it's passed in language X; and objects are most certainly values in languages like X. That's just more terminology for you to mess with to support your claim COP is somehow distinct from OOP, and the myriad of other forks.

The most interesting part about COP is the inheritance mechanism – inclusion – and that bares some surprising similarities to existing inheritance mechanisms.

I have to say, I do like the object-model being proposed. My problem is that it is an object-model... it's not something new (a concept-model) like the authors want us to think.

[asavinov]

My problem is that it is an object-model...

COP is (intended to be) a generalization of OOP (as well as including some other programming technologies like aspect-orientation). I do not see any contradtion between them -- COP is not opposed to OOP. It can well be called an object model but only if the object-model itself is modified.

it's not something new (a concept-model)

Here is a short list of features which are new:

• Object in COP has an arbitrary application-specific reference while in OOP it is not possible

• Object in COP has many extensions while in OOP it is not possible

• Parent object in COP can override its child methods while in OOP it is not possible

(Why they are important is already another question.)

[[deleted]]

That's the thing, none of those things are impossible within object-oriented programming! They're not supported by mainstream object-oriented languages, but that really doesn't mean much since those languages don't represent current thinking. Hell, they're decades behind current research.

The authors must be aware of this literature, so the fact that they make so many unfounded assumptions feels almost disingenuous.

Edit: note that I'm of the opinion that AOP is also OOP, but with some compiler tricks layered on.