Aaron J Reichow wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, jan ziak wrote:
> 
> 
>>hi again. i want to ask why must everything in squeak be a subclass of
>>something. do you think it's rational?
> 
> 
> What logic would there be in doing it any other way?
> 
> In a comprehensively OO system like Squeak, it makes a lot of sense to
> have a root class that is the ultimate superclass of everything else.
> ProtoObject and Object provide a lot of base support to the entire system;
> C++ has show us what a no-root system is like- why would we want that?
> Why recreate the same functionality in every new root class you create?
> 
> Again I ask- what other way would you do it?  With no root class? What
> advantages are there in that?  I see having a root class simply as the
> only logical thing to do in a system like Squeak.  It doesn't confine the
> user or programmer one bit, but provides a tremendous amount of
> convenience and consistence.  Losing it would take this away but without
> providing any new positives.

I agree, but wasn't it possible to create classes outside of the 
hierarchy with no super class or am I wrong? I guess I remember 
something like that.

Regards
            Chris Burkert
-- 
http://www.chrisburkert.de/