Very nice characterization, Andres. Have you by chance ever seen the 
book "Laws of Form" by G. Spencer Brown? It is a logical calculus 
based on just this notion ....

Cheers,

Alan

-----

At 2:17 PM -0700 5/24/03, Andres Valloud wrote:
>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.


--