is squeak really object oriented ?

jan ziak ziakjan at host.sk
Thu May 22 21:33:49 UTC 2003


On Thu, 22 May 2003 22:15:44 +0200, Andreas Raab wrote
> Yayy! What beautiful heretic questions ;-)))
> 
> BTW, if you are interested in this area you should give eToys a try. 
> They do many of the things you're describing, e.g., make objects 
> tangible and therefore become more oriented to dealing with objects 
> instead of text input.
> 

perhaps. i want to ask then, in the example with the numeric list (below and 
previously)
1. is it possible to create a new scripting tile representing my list ?
2. is not the eToys subsystem of squeak somewhat "incomplete" (in terms that 
it does not allow to work with all classes visible in the browser for 
example) ?

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> > Behalf Of jan ziak
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 9:55 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: is squeak really object oriented ?
> > 
> > 
> > hi. I've got a strange question: is squeak really an object 
> > oriented system 
> > or it only claims it is? 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > so, is squeak for work with objects or with text ?
> > 
> > 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 ...".
> > 
> > so, are we working with objects or just manipulating text ?
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > jz.
> > 
> >






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list