Try siblings and copies ....

(and also try reading some of the material on the Squeakland site).

At 02:47 AM 12/22/2004, Blake wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:15:16 +0100, <hjh-sqlist at lexdb.net> wrote:
>
>>>Is there any way to go from the prototype you build as an eToy to a
>>>genuine class?
>>The answer is 'No'.
>
>That's what I figured.
>
>>Not easy at least. Or perhaps it doesn't make much sense. Because that
>>is not the general idea behind EToys. It was a deliberate reduction of
>>concepts to find out what is still possible.
>
>Sure. And has been pointed out, there isn't a good transition between
>eToys and Squeak proper.

Etoys shouldn't transition to Squeak proper.


>>Etoys is instance based. Every instance gets it's own singleton class - a
>>subclass of Player is generated which contains the code of the scripts
>>which you develop with the tiles.
>>(It is not meant that people should work with that directly but of
>>course you can experiment with that. The classes/methods are named like
>>Player56>>script1).
>
>Yeah, see, I suspect this is going to get me into trouble in short order.
>My kid is going to want to create a horde of alien/monster/whatevers. He
>loved the stamp tool and the copy halo button, but they're going to lose
>their charm if he has to program them each separately.

Or course, he can make hordes of whatever he programs.


>>P.S. However the question is of course very interesting. The idea is to
>>work with an object (add methods etc.) and then generalize. This is
>>basically what some Smalltalkprogrammers are doing all the time.
>
>Prototype-based programming.
>
>I'll check out the thesis. In the meantime, what would be ideal, I wonder.
>A copy method? Creating a real class from the eToy? Smalltalk's
>extensibility has to be its most impressive feature; I'm sure it could be
>done.

There are any number of things that can be done in Squeak that are not good 
ideas or well thought out .... suggest the latter before the former ...

>  (I'm still working on understanding traits....)