On 23 May 2003 12:49:36 +0200, Martin Drautzburg wrote
> "jan ziak" <ziakjan at host.sk> writes:
>  
> > so, is squeak for work with objects or with text ?
> 
> I am not questioning your concerns as such, but IMHO text is
> great. Off topic thought follow ...
> 
> The way you manipulate tangible real world objects is nothing I would
> want to do in software and vice versa I'd be very happy if I could
> type "aWall beWhite" to paint a Wall. Instead I have to manipulate a
> lot of material objects (in a very intuitive way though).
> 
> In a way Chinese is a human object oriented language and it has its
> problems. First of all it is difficult to learn.
> 
> Then I believe that only a fraction of the real world is composed of
> things. The ratio of things/non-things is about the same as the ratio
> of bananas/non-bananas. As an excecise e.g. try to pinpoint the
> "things" in this posting - not even the "wall" further up is a real
> thing. 
> 
> Frankly I do not even believe the real-world (i.e. the way we 
> percieve the real world) is object oriented at all. Fortunately 
> "text" allows you to reason about non-things easily.

i admit, you are right (within the context you have built up).