Hi guys, <br><br>I was reading recently Jim Coplien ideas about DCI and I was surprised with the following statement: <br><br><i>"The Smalltalk people, when they put together Smalltalk originally the
computational model was exactly right, in terms of thinking in terms of
objects. And then they screwed it up with the language. The language is
so class focused! Most languages that we’re saddled with today had made
this error."<br></i><br>you can find it here: <a href="http://blog.redtexture.net/2010/06/01/coplien-on-dci-mvc/">http://blog.redtexture.net/2010/06/01/coplien-on-dci-mvc/</a><br><br>Does someone knows what Jim is criticizing? In which sense the computational model was screwed by the language? I see smalltalk as a language that express very well the intended computational model behind. <br>
<br>But that's just me, maybe some of you could help me to understand Jim's point. <br><br>Thanks<br>Erlis <br>