is squeak really object oriented ?
jan ziak
ziakjan at host.sk
Thu May 22 21:02:02 UTC 2003
On Thu, 22 May 2003 15:54:21 -0400 (EDT), diegogomezdeck wrote
> Hi jz,
>
> > hi. I've got a strange question: is squeak really an object oriented
> > system or it only claims it is?
>
> It's really object oriented.
>
> > the point of the question is that
> > instead of working with objects, i work mostly with text. the objects
> > are in fact only in my head, as a consequence of reading sources of
> > objects which are in the browser. but the objects are not tangible, i
> > cannot see them. for example, let's take an instance of an
> > OrderedCollection: this object is in fact not an object but a textual
> > representation of it, I cannot see the collection on my workspace and
> > must simulate all its behavior on my own and imagine it in my head.
>
> Don't care of the type of representation for squeak's objects, you always
> will have a DIFFERENTE set of objects in your mind.
yes, but the question is whether i will have to bother my mind with all those
numerous objects which could have been on the workspace in from of me. i
think you agree that the capabilities of human brain are constrained, so
the "real-time" representation of the problem i am currently working on IS
significant.
>
> > another problem is that when i am writing the source code of an object,
> > i do not work with objects again. i only manipulate text and imagine
> > those objects, but the objects are not on my workspace. i think that
> > object oriented programming should look like working with objects and
> > not with text.
>
> Today's answer: It's because you work in browsers instead of working
> with inspectors and debugers.
>
> Tomorrow's answer: We need MORE level of objects representation in Squeal.
> eToys are one example of a possible path to walk. Croquet is another.
>
correct me if i am wrong, but the source code i write (and accept by alt-S)
in an inspector or a debugger has the properties i criticize. an secondly, is
there a way of how to transfer a reference to my newly created list of
numbers (decsribed below and previously) to an inspected object - the problem
is that i cannot touch my list so hi can i simply transfer it there?
> > so, is squeak for work with objects or with text ?
>
> With object in the image (don't care the representation they have)
> and with object in your mind.
>
> > another example: suppose that, after 3 hours of hard experimentation, i
> > have finally obtained a list of numbers which contain the results of
> > my experiments. the numbers are of great signifance to me because i am
> > totally unable to replicate them (because i do not preciselly remember
> > how i obtained them for example). let the numbers be concentrated in
> > an instance of OrderedCollection. so i have an ordered collection
> > instance and numbers in it. as next, i want to incorporate my numeric
> > list in a source code of some class. wouldn't it be logical to simply
> > insert a reference to my list into the source code in places where i
> > want to use my list object? in think that the squeak system answers:
> > "no it wouldn't. you must make a textual representation of your object
> > and ...".
>
> It's not true. If you have a name to an object you can use it from every
> place where the name is valid.
>
> Simple example: Put your OrderedCollection in a Global variable and you
> will able to use it from everywhere.
>
that's the problem, the numeric list will be accesible EVERYWHERE and not
only where it is needed - i think that's inaccaptable.
> > so, are we working with objects or just manipulating text ?
>
> Depends where you work. If you manipulate objects from an inspector
> the feeling is completly diffent.
>
when i worked with an inspector, i did not have that feeling.
> > giving objects names and them using those names is just one way of how
> > to interconnect those objects. i want to work with objects not with
> > their names, so why should i give names to objects anyway.
>
> To work with anObject you have to identify it from the rest of the
> univers. If you want to avoid the work to identify it every time
> you want to impact on it, you can "remember" this object with a name.
>
but i do not want to give it a name, i just want to use it.
there are numerous cases when it's better not to give an object a name (e.g.
not all categories which we people recognize have names, some do not have
names and names are not needed. when you are shaking you do not have to
explicitly name your state by saying "i am shaking" because everyone around
knows that you are shaking).
> > jz.
>
> Diego
>
> PS: I found really interesting your questions and I hope you give a chance
> to my anwers.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|