2008/11/26 Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de>:
> On 26.11.2008, at 09:48, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> 2008/11/26 Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no>:
>>>
>>> On 26.11.2008 05:32, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Everything is an object
>>>> 2. Objects communicate by sending and receiving messages (in terms of
>>>> objects)
>>>> 3. Objects has their own memory (in terms of objects)
>>>> ----
>>>> 4. Every object is an instance of class (which must be an object)
>>>> 5. The class holds the shared behavior for its instances (in the form
>>>> of objects in a program list)
>>>> 6. To eval a program list, control is passed to the first object and
>>>> the remainder is treated as its message
>>>>
>>>> so, where in these statements you find anything about inheritance, or
>>>> something where it says that subclass(es) should have any assumptions
>>>> about the ways how superclass is storing its instances in memory, and
>>>> therefore a subclass allowed to directly manipulate the object's state
>>>> without consulting with superclass?
>>>
>>> I'm afraid Alan wasn't as precise as he should have been here.
>>
>> I think he did this intentionally, because a precise parts is up to
>> implementation.
>> The principles above is most generic ones. Btw, notice a line between
>> 3 and 4, its not just a random stroke - its actually shows a first
>> step from most generic to more specific.
>
>
> Just a meta remark - I find it highly amusing how people dissect the Gospel
> of Alan, even interpreting it literally. He must get quite a chuckle from
> that ;)
>

:) i didn't meant to dissect it. Just wanted to point out, that we in
the same boat (smalltalk) as long as design follows these basic
principles. The rest is implementation details.


> - Bert -
>

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.