Hi.

> 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. <snip>
> 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 <snip>

Objects represent distinctions in the sense that you cut the whole
universe into THIS and NOT THIS.  Of all possible things, you
distinguish THIS from NOT THIS.

The distinctions you make are based on your intentions.

Although you can replicate a network of distinctions connected by
messages which carry the information around, you cannot (so far) put
your own intentions in the machine and let them do the work.  That could
be why you feel you're working with "text".

In order for your network of distinctions and messages to be
understandable to others, you need to write your code in a way that
hints others about what your intentions were.  Hence the emphasis on
intention revealing code.

> 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.

How are messages going to be sent from a context in which you can't
distinguish between the recipient and everything else?  The distinctions
corresponding to the recipients must be named, so the distinctions you
made can be preserved in the code as a reflection of your intentions.

Strictly speaking, objects don't exist.  What does exist are
distinctions based on the observer's intentions.  You name distinctions,
not objects.

Andres.