is squeak really object oriented ?
diegogomezdeck at consultar.com
diegogomezdeck at consultar.com
Fri May 23 07:13:04 UTC 2003
> > > 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.
I agree with you in "the capabilities of human brain are constrained", but
I think you'll agree with me on the fact that the current-state-of-art-
computers are far away to be more powerful.
I really beleive we need another user-interaction paradigm shift (instead
of just talking about the colors in squeak'2 windows). Croquet is a
promise in this direction. There other thing to try voice-recognition, etc.
Problaby you and me will not see the next paradigm shift (we are just stuck
so much on ST/80 and we have problem to take off our balloon) but we have
to work in this direction.
I'd like to hear YOUR ideas in these area.
> > > 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?
This particular view is text-based but there are other options to try.
- Let's represent messages with buttons (buttons as action firers is a well
- Drag the button above one object.
- Click on the button to send the message.
Smalltalk is a place where YOU (and me) can play with these ideas. I found
your emails really interesting in a way (I also have the feeling that the
current state of ST is primitive), but I feel you're trying to say: "ST is
so primitive, can somebody improve it?".
Again: Why you don't try to explain your ideas? Or better, to implement
them so everybody can "buy" your point of view?
> > 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.
As I told you, this was a SIMPLE example. I don't need to explain that we
have *today* other options.
And the most important: We have a place (Squeak) to play with new ideas.
> > > 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.
Wich type of representation are you expecting?
> > > 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).
I agree with your problem description. What I can't see is how do you want
to solve this problem.
More information about the Squeak-dev