[Newbies] I don't get it

[Erlis Vidal]

Hi all,

First of all, thanks for the comments.

@Bert:

While reading the artima article I had the idea that DCI could easily be
implemented in smalltalk, but then it surprises me when Jim was disappointed
with smalltalk implementation. All my curiosity move towards understanding
what's the mistake perceived by Jim.

He mentioned that the computational model was conceived right (I'm assuming
he's referring to Dr. Alan Kay here) but then the language screwed it up
(was this an indirect to Ingalls?)  This still not clear to me, there's no
reference about why? Or any example of language in which you  can look for
his ideal of  implementation. He just did mention some languages in which
DCI could be easily implemented, smalltalk among them but nothing more.

I have the impression that my question is valid in the smalltalk community,
but I'm thinking that probably I should ask this in a DCI mailing list,
where possible Jim himself could answer my question.

Thank you all
Erlis

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>wrote:

>
> On 22.06.2011, at 12:05, David Corking wrote:
>
> > Erlis  wrote:
> >
> >> Now I think I start understanding Jim statement, basically the statement
> is:
> >> Smalltalk (the language) adopted the classical way of OO instead the
> >> prototype way, so I don't have all the plasticity I was expecting...
> >>
> >> Do the smalltalkers feel this way?
> >
> > Perhaps. But Squeakers have access to other languages: notably Etoys.
> > It isn't often mentioned that Etoys is an implementation of the Self
> > computation model as a visual programming language for children.
> > Interestingly, almost any Morphic class can easily become an Etoys
> > object. (This won't be surprising to those who know that Morphic was
> > first built for Self.)
>
> Indeed, and thanks for pointing it out. Adding instance-specific methods
> isn't hard to do in Squeak (Etoys does it), although modifying method-lookup
> to implement delegation is more challenging.
>
> It seems, however, that prototypes is not really what Jim and Trygve are
> aiming at. The paper instead mentions Traits, which indeed add a lot of
> flexibility to the traditional Smalltalk class model:
>
>        http://www.artima.com/articles/dci_vision.html
>
> - Bert -
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20110622/71f8b7b6/attachment.htm