Re: OO and CSP

[A E Lawrence <adrian.lawrence@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Campbell, John" wrote:
> 
> Hi
> Given that OO seems to have become the Orthodox
> Religion of the rest of the computing world, I've been
> thinking about what "concurrent objects" should mean.
> 
> It seems to me that Occam achieves good performance
> partly because channels are process-to-process links,
> and processes are pretty much statically defined entities.
> 
> What are the performance implications if you allow object-to-
> object channels?  At the top level, the concept doesn't seem
> difficult, but at the system implementation level, the implied
> handshaking between all participants in an event would
> require a combinatorial expansion of low-level communication,
> wouldn't it?

If Tom post details of his talk, you will find answers to some of these
questions. Was it Tom who said something like "objects are sitting
ducks" ?

You should have been at Kent. We missed you.

Adrian
-- 
Dr A E Lawrence