But consider the Internet as a real object oriented system ...

Cheers,

Alan

-------------

At 04:50 PM 8/29/2007, Marcel Weiher wrote:

>On Aug 26, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Fabio Filasieno wrote:
>
>>>Smalltalk is very different - you always can add behaviour you
>>>need to the other object and the application logic is distributed
>>>across the system.
>>
>>That's not the point, but you are right, Unix and Smalltalk are
>>different.
>>In regard to the black boxes thing.
>
>I think a lot of the differences are superficial, but one seems very
>deep:  Unix's unifying principle is extensional, Smalltalk intensional.
>
>That is, Unix gets its power from the fact that everything is just
>represented as bytes, and you can pipe those around.  Who cares what
>they mean?  To the refined tastes of us Smalltalkers that seems
>barbaric, but it is very powerful in a very pragmatic sort of way, and
>gets you extremely loose coupling and late binding (of things other
>than the fact that it's all just bytes).  Of course, you lose moving
>to higher levels of abstraction, and no, XML doesn't really do it.
>
>Smalltalk, on the other hand, does really well with modelling
>semantics, as objects sending messages, but has a hard time extending
>its unifying principle outside the image.  Which is somewhat ironic
>considering the idea was connecting things and late, late binding.
>
>Marcel
>