is squeak really object oriented ?
Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus
schwa at cc.gatech.edu
Wed May 28 23:10:27 UTC 2003
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 04:35:14PM +0200, jan ziak wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:22:23 -0400, Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote
> > On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:49:19AM +0200, jan ziak wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 May 2003 23:19:54 -0400, Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote
> > >
> > > a non-textual representation of a number two could be simply "two dots on
> a
> > > screen".
> >
> > That's natural.
> >
> > > and a representation of 324325435 can be a visual list of its digits
> > > (digits are in the "dot notation"), thus 324325435 can be represented non-
> > > textually. you can admit that i replaced the notion of a textual digit
> with
> > > the notion of some "dotty" symbols which stand for each textual digit.
> >
> > Whoa. I can't admit that. I can admit that you replaced one textual
> > representation of digits with another textual representation. Are
> > you really arguing that it would be better to have 9 dotty symbols
> > and a 0-symbol instead of the symbols we are used to, and to compose
> > larger numbers in exactly the same way with the new symbols? That
> > seems like a very difficult position to defend.
> >
>
> i think you agree that the arabic notation and the "dotty" notation are
> interchangable.
For positive integers that don't have zero digits, yes.
>
> but i want to mention, i had not on my mind to discuss about representations
> of numbers, i wanted to ask whether i always have to manipulate text composed
> of LETTERS. the letters (as you will surely write back for their definition)
> are defined as the signs which i have on my keyboard.
>
> > (BTW, what is the non-textual representation of zero?)
>
> zero is a symbol just like any other symbol, but your BTW question has
> presumed that i should really depict a zero as nothing, so i do not want ot
> answer your BTW question.
>
No, I didn't presume that at all. I was curious. Even if I did presume
it, it is a valid question.
> >
> > > but the point is that representing ANY number on a screen in
> > > non-textual form is indeed possible.
> >
> > As soon as you are talking about symbols that do not represent a
> > number itself, but rather digits that must be interpreted together
> > to find out what the actual number is, you are back to text.
> >
MARKER ONE
> > If you want 1000000 dots to represent the number 1000000, then I
> > admit that you can represent any number on a screen (subject to
> > screen and retina resolution limitations). However, you have not
> > escaped text in any meaningful way by simply replacing numeric
> > digits with dotty-symbols.
> >
>
> i have never written that i want to represent 1e6 by 1e6 dots...this was your
> idea.
If that is so, why didn't you answer the statement directly above MARKER ONE
(hey, names are useful!)
>
> i agree that i haven't espaced it in your sense, but i have espaced it in my
> sense because i don't have to manipulate text of english letters.
>
> > > i think that we should adopt the opinion that every object can
> potentially
> > > have several representations (as several people in this list have already
> > > mentioned) and take this opinion as common knowledge which need not to be
> > > mentioned in the list. this is why i did not mention that objects can
> have
> > > several representations - it seems obvious to me.
> >
> > Ok. Then what do you mean by working with the object itself, and not
> > a representation?
> >
> > >
> > > > What does a collection of numbers look like? What about a
> > > > collection of 324325435 numbers?
> > > >
> > > > > --- cut ---
> > > > > the squeak system answers: "no it wouldn't. you must make a textual
> > > > > representation of your object and ...".
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that would be nice. Maybe someday we'll figure out how to do
> > > > it well. If you have some concrete ideas about how to implement such
> > > > behavior, I'd love to hear them.
> > > >
> > > > In the mean time, Squeak has the really nice feature that a lot of
> > > > basic objects such as Points, Arrays, Numbers, Symbols, Strings, and
> > > > probably more print themselves out in the same syntax as used to
> > > > create them. So, if you have an ordered collection in a workspace,
> > > > you can highlight 'myOrderedCollection asArray', print it to get
> > > > something like #(1 2 3 4 5 6.66), and cut'n'paste the already
> > > > highlighted expression into your browser window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > in some cases, it is crutial to perform operations with THE object and
> not
> > > with some "conversion" of it.
> >
> > If you mean that pasting the textual representation of the array
> > into your code gives you a different array with the same numbers,
> > then I agree. You might have an array with non-numeric objects
> > that can't be pasted in this way.
> >
> > I'm not sure that this is what you meant, since the distinctions between
> > the object itself, a representation of the object, and now a "conversion"
> > of the object are not clear to me.
> >
> > Would you agree that you can never interact with the object itself, only
> > with a representation, but that the textual representation is inadequate
> > for your needs? That would be a good starting point, one that I can
> > agree with.
> >
>
> i agree.
>
> > > > Also, as others have mentioned, eToys and MorphicWrappers are worth
> > > > looking into. I'm not sure if Self has been mentioned in these
> > > > threads, but it might be to your liking as well.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'work with objects not with their
> > > > names'. As others have noted elsewhere, not matter whether the
> > > > object appears as a textural name, a visual object, or a sound,
> > > > they're all just ways of interacting with an object, not the object
> > > > itself. Do you mean that you want to interact with visual
> representations
> > > > of objects?
> > >
> > > i had textual names on my mind.
> > >
> > > a position of an object on a screen is in fact its "name" in the context
> of
> > > the screen. i had not such "names" on my mind.
> > >
> >
> > I do not understand your answer. Could you please restate it?
>
> let me reformulate the basic problem: it would be nice to include a reference
> to an object into a source code, so that i do not have to explicitly refer to
> it by textual name. if you like, i would like to drag and drop that object
> into the place where i use it.
>
> i have looked at math-morphs, and i must say that it is not what i expected.
> when i start typing "on air" then, again, i just type text (on my keyboard)
> in order to refer to objects - it would by nice to mix the text with
> references to objects i see or i find.
>
> jz.
>
> >
> > Joshua
> >
>
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|