Jan,

You might be interested in reading the following:

http://www.erights.org/elib/capability/ode/ode-objects.html

if you have not already done so. It does a good job, 
IMHO, of summarizing and contrasting three approaches to
implementing objects: prototypes, classes, and functions
(lambda abstractions). There is even a quote from Alan at
the end with regards to the nature of object-based systems....

Ron
----------=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-========oOo========-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=----------
mailto:Ronald.P.Welch at baesystems.com                Phone:(607)770-3701
BAE SYSTEMS Controls            600 Main St Johnson City, NY 13790-1888
----------=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-===================-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=----------


-----Original Message-----
From: jan ziak [mailto:ziakjan at host.sk] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 9:37 AM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: copy yourself ?


On Fri, 23 May 2003 15:14:13 +0300 , Lex Spoon wrote
> I think of objects as having "common sense", unlike physical "objects".
> It's my favorite part about objects, that they can do basic things 
> for themselves.  (And through composition, "basic" things for high-level
> objects are themslevs prewwy powerful).
> 
> A better word might have been "actor", but that was taken already. 
>  :) It's what Macromedia Director calls its objects, though.
> 
> Lex

i think of objects as NOT having common sense. i think, we can get a copy of

an object A only if there is someone who knows how to make a new object 
looking like A. the one who knows how to copy an object is a replicator. but

my opinion is to think in terms that replicator cannot replicate 
itself...there must be "something" replicating it.

you said that you like objects which can do basic things for themselves. my 
opinion is that no object exists "on its own" but is surrounded by an 
environment. i do not think that objects have something like "self" but 
rather that we attribute "self" to them.