Actually I think building oop on top of actor model makes the mental model far easier. Instead of worrying if the knight object uses the sword object to hurt the monster obect then which object .deals_damage? Or should the object take_damage? The actor framework, being all message passing, makes these choices clear. True, originally oop was message passing, but no mainstream modern oop languages except Ruby sorta are message passing frameworks.
> no mainstream modern oop languages except Ruby sorta are message passing frameworks.
Will changing the name fix that problem? I think any language or framework that gains widespread adoption will have to compromise its principles in some ways for the sake of pragmatism.
There are modern OO languages that stay true to Alan Kay's ideas too. The problem is that they all seem insignificant in impact when compared to Java, which relentlessly sacrifices purity for pragmatism.
What I'm asking is, how will the actor model stop people from taking those pure ideas and turning them into another Java? Isn't it just a matter of time? If that's the case, then it hasn't really "fixed" anything about OO.
