That's true if there is no composition going on within the object. But, once you have a class hierarchy, some mixins, some dependency injection, or some such... you are "privately" talking to parts of yourself that come from elsewhere.
But when it's the exact same syntax to call a statically-dispatched method on the current object as it is to send a message to something else, it breaks the illusion of messaging being meaningfully different while writing code.
Whether some actual bonafide communication ends up being done one level removed (e.g. inside such a private method, or chained off of a field access) is immaterial because when appraising the conceptual integrity we cannot continue after seeing a fail.
Comments
That's true if there is no composition going on within the object. But, once you have a class hierarchy, some mixins, some dependency injection, or some such... you are "privately" talking to parts of yourself that come from elsewhere.
But when it's the exact same syntax to call a statically-dispatched method on the current object as it is to send a message to something else, it breaks the illusion of messaging being meaningfully different while writing code.
Whether some actual bonafide communication ends up being done one level removed (e.g. inside such a private method, or chained off of a field access) is immaterial because when appraising the conceptual integrity we cannot continue after seeing a fail.
(edited)