Hi Diego.

I agree and I do not ;-)

For certain things an image will be a better representation than text... but
it is still a representation... and for me sometimes is difficult to say
when a form of representation is better than other.

Example: how an OrderedCollection should be represented? If you see what's
inside it, then you're breaking encapsulaption... so, how do you imagine it?
Let's suppouse that we pick as representation a black box on the screen...
is that more representative than the text myOrderedCollection?

But I agree that the object car will be nicer represented as a little car on
the screen... but about the amount of information in the representation... I
don't know... "car image" and "car text" should be close.

Since we all know how to speak, then textual representation do the job...
graphic representation is nicer and will "invite" more people to play with
objects.

Cheers

Jorge
----- Original Message -----
From: <diegogomezdeck at consultar.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 4:29 AM
Subject: Re: is squeak really object oriented ?


> Hi Jorge,
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I think you always need a way to refer to objects, as Sean Charles said
> > the two dimensional representation on the screen is no better than a
> > textual representation is just another form of representation.
>
> I don't agree. There are better (or more convenient) ways to represent
> things...
>
> Simple (aka stupid) examples:
>
> Don't you think that stereo-audio is (in most cases) "better" than
> monoaural audio?
>
> Don't you thing that current state-of-the-art 3d games are better
> representations of, for example, Monters?
>
> In our business (OO paradigm) we try to simulate the univers (or a part of
> it).  Every representation that make the objects more "real" will produce
a
> big impact.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Diego
>
>
>
>