Should every kernel class x provide support for (x new)
printString and (x new) hash
Klaus D. Witzel
klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Sun Jan 21 15:46:10 UTC 2007
I have nothing to say against your arguments :) just asked if it is
possibile to be more polite to potential converts when they begin using a
OTOH, for (Object new), you might try
to see the tip of the iceberg (keeping in mind that google still does not
crawl each and every piece of publicly available Smalltalk code).
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:23:09 +0100, Ralph Johnson wrote:
>> Funny, (Object new) doesn't have such problems. So, would you say that
>> about "Object new", too. I doubt, because almost every Smalltalk pro
>> so ;-)
> Object has no abstract methods, but it is still an abstract class, and
> I never make instances of it. i consider it a hack to do so, an
> amusing hack, but a hack nevertheless. I have been teaching that to
> my students for twenty years, and I do not believe that almost every
> Smalltalk pro makes instances of Object.
> Smalltalk does not have static type-checking. The compiler does not
> stop you from doing stupid things.
> An abstract class is a class that you do not instantiate, but use only
> as a superclass. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a class is
> abstract, but Collection says it in its comment, and it has a
> #subclassResponsibility method.
> -Ralph Johnson
More information about the Squeak-dev