On Thu, 22 May 2003 22:42:49 +0200, Chris Burkert wrote
> 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.
> 

it might be, but i have never seen anyone using it nor any real-life example 
of it.

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