On Thu, 22 May 2003 16:03:08 -0400 (EDT), diegogomezdeck wrote
> Hi,
> 
> The classes are a good idea but they are not a must for an Object Oriented
> environment.
> 
> In Smalltalk/Squeak the classes represent the concepts (the forms in
> Plato's theory).  The relation between the objects and their classes 
> is a isA defintion.  And you know, we use to say "everything is an 
> Object"... so make sense that every concept is a sub-concept of Object.
> 

yes, that's ok. all that i am capable of recognizing has a name: object. but 
not all objects are classes. class is an object. but in smalltalk, every 
object belongs to a class.

i think i do not recognize classes of objects but only objects (that's the 
definition of recognition), classes are bundles of objects which share some 
common property. classes are created solely by my mind, but objects, on the 
contrary, emerge from the process of recognition (which includes parts of 
mind as well). so it seems good to me to define an object orentied system as 
to be composed of objects and not of classes (as for example in Self).

in smalltalk:
1. object must be a class
2. class is an object

i do not see any logic behind this. if you do then a would like to know about 
it.

> English: "Everything is an Object"
> Smalltalk: Object allSubInstances allSatisfy:[:each | each isKindOf: 
> Object]
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Diego
> 
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Aaron
> >
> >  Aaron Reichow  ::  UMD ACM Pres  ::  http://www.d.umn.edu/~reic0024/
> > "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"  :: m. l. king
> > jr.