is squeak really object oriented ?

Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus schwa at cc.gatech.edu
Wed May 28 23:11:38 UTC 2003


On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 10:41:09PM +0200, jan ziak wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 09:06:19 -0700, Duane Maxwell wrote
> > > i think you agree that the arabic notation and the "dotty" notation are
> > > interchangable.
> > 
> > Since arabic representations extend beyond just positive integers, I'm 
> > interested in the "dotty" notation for trivial arabic notation values 
> > 0.5, and -5, or whether "dotty" notation can even remotely extend to 
> > represent a couple of other useful numbers, pi, and i.
> > 
> 
> yes the dotty notation can be extended to stand for any system of signs 
> because it is a sign system also. i do not know why are you interested in 
> this, because i didnt want to discuss signs systems but to ask for your 
> opinion on the question "is squeak really object oriented?".

You're the one who suggested that your new sign system is in some way
qualitatively different from using arabic numerals, remember?

Ok, I'm done.

Joshua

> 
> addition to the sign systems: i can say that the dot in 0.5 will be denoted 
> by 25 dots forming some shape. analogically for -5, pi, i, ... 
> 
> > As to copying, there are indeed physical objects that copy themselves 
> > without the need for external "factories" - we here on planet Earth 
> > call them "cells".  Strictly speaking, in mitosis, the original is 
> > destroyed and replaced by two entities built from parts of the 
> > original, but they copies are usually functionally equivalent and 
> > interchangeable with each other.
> > 
> 
> the two cells are smaller then the original one (unless they pump resources 
> from the outer world - but in this case i think that the original cell gets 
> copied with the help of its environment, in your words: with the help of an 
> external factory). as they are smaller, they can be copied recurrently only 
> several times (unless they use te helping hand of their environment).
> 
> > I've never understood the fascination with the pseudo-philosophy of 
> > "The Matrix" - the whole "we only know what our senses tell us" thing 
> > is really not much of a step up from the "what if atoms are little 
> > solar systems" and "what if I went back in time and killed my 
> > grandfather" types of philosophy questions that seem profound when 
> > you're a teenager smoking weed.
> > 
> > -- Duane
> 
> the matrix is not pseudo-philosophy in the sense you noted i think. i think  
> the main fact following from (not only from) matrix is that we can interpret 
> the surrounding world in several ways. and this is highly important.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list