ECOOP 2nd referee's comments

A. Does the paper contain sufficient information to be evaluated?

        (x) Yes
        () No

B. Overall recommendation:

        () Strong Accept
        () Accept
        () Weak Accept
        () Weak Reject
        (x) Reject
        () Strong Reject

C. Confidence in your rating:

        () Highly confident
        () Confident
        (x) Uncertain, although familiar
        () Uncertain, because of unfamilarity

D. Does the paper fit the theme on Object Orientation?

        (x) Well
        () OK
        () Not at all

E. Tick the main field of the paper:

        () Programming Languages
        () Specification Languages, Semantics,  Formal methods
        () Analysis, Design, Methodology
        (x) Libraries, Frameworks, Patterns
        () User Interfaces
        () Tools
        () Concurrency
        () Application, Simulation
        () Metrics
        () Teaching
        () Paradigm Combination
        () Other:

F. Is the paper a research contribution or an experience report?

        (x) Research paper
        () Experience report

G. How do you rate the scientific quality/originality of the paper?

       () Good
       () OK
       (x) Low
       () Not acceptable

H. How do you rate the quality of presentation, English etc.?

       () Good
       (x) OK
       () Low
       () Not acceptable

J. Your comments to the author(s): Paper No: 64

Ideas only - the lack of experience shines through. Completely neglecting all the state of the art in distributed o-o languages, location-transparent method invocation. DSOM!

Table of contents, Referees