Re: Intel: timely article

[Ian East <ian.east@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 27 Jun 2006, at 20:00, tjoccam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I agree, Neil, about using "process-oriented" EVERY time we deal with
> someone who may be outside our circle. Then, we can go on to point  
> to a
> subhead (like CSP, or concurrency-oriented, or resource-oriented - the
> last is my own invention, I think).
Would like to suggest plugging the phrase "communicating-process  
architecture" (CPA).  We have adopted this term for the conference  
series, and hence can back it up.  It is also fairly close to the  
expansion of CSP.

My only slight concern with "process-oriented" is that it smacks a  
little of the idea of somehow replacing "object-oriented", and I have  
encountered considerable sensitivity there.

My own feeling is the two sit happily together. Processes can own  
objects, communicate them, and even keep them from interfering with  
each other.  Quite parental really.

Ian East