Martin Fowler writes of the CommandOrientedInterface and command objects and executors:
Command oriented interfaces have a number of benefits. One of the primary ones is the ability to easily add common behavior to commands by decorating the command executor. This is very handy for handling transactions, logging, and the like. Commands can be queued for later execution and [...] be passed across a network. Command results can be cached [...]And, of course, it is relatively easy to add "Undo/Redo" support to command objects and store stacks of command objects to be undone/redone.
In a dynamic language that supports reflection, one could create generic command objects by creating a class that retains a reference to an arbitrary object [call it a 'target'], a reference to an arbitrary method of that object [call that an 'action'], and a list of arguments to pass into that method [or perhaps only one argument, the 'sender'].
Instances of this class could be created by reading a configuration file or deserializing instances that had been created in an Interface Builder. I'm not saying that Apple's Interface Builder does exactly like this, but it is doing something kind of like this. See this page for more.
Cocoa and Interface builder allow creating powerful programs without writing (or generating) a lot of code. It's been one of the most advanced development environments for at least a decade (it used to be part of NextStep), and it still is one of the most advanced development environments.
Smalltalk, Objective-C, and no doubt Python and Ruby could generic command-object classes like this very succinctly. Java would be more difficult, but it can be done in Java, as well.
Perhaps if methods and method-calls (and classes) were more easily thought of as first-class objects [which is very far from the case in C++], tools forAspect-Oriented programming would be easier or unnecessary.