2010/8/24 Alejandro F. Reimondo <aleReimondo at smalltalking.net>:
> Hi Igor,
>
>> Yup. What makes smalltalk to be smalltalk is
>> an evironment of live objects,
>
> [I have not made any relationship with life.
> I don´t know what "life of an object" is :-) ]
>
>> not its syntax or rules (because they can be easily
>> changed at run-time).
>
> The preservation of it identity.
> As a system it is defined as something that
> when ovserved through time preserves identity.
> (it is also the only caracteristic of anObject
> that distinguish as an object and not been
> only "something" )
>
> Ale.
>

Since an object preserves its identity, we can track it's creation and
deletion. It thus has a birth and death, not enough attributes for
using a life metaphore ?

Nicolas

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua at gmail.com>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk and functional programming
>
>
> On 24 August 2010 16:31, Alejandro F. Reimondo
> <aleReimondo at smalltalking.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Smalltalk is a dynamic fuctional object-oriented language.
>>
>> Smalltalk is a trayectory in time; it what happens to a body
>> in-formation when it change through time ... and survives
>> that "unique" experience.
>> It is not it's "definition" nor it contents; because it can
>> change while you are still trying to constrain it to a
>> description.
>
> Yup. What makes smalltalk to be smalltalk is an evironment of live objects,
> not its syntax or rules (because they can be easily changed at run-time).
>
>> Relax and use the part of your smalltalk in the computer;
>> but don't forget that there are other parts of your smalltalk
>> (some parts outside computer and otehr parts seen
>> only in retrospective -sometimes described as
>> software evolution- ).
>>
>> have a good smalltalking day,
>> Ale.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Withers" <reefedjib at gmail.com>
>> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
>> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 10:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk and functional programming
>>
>>
>>> You can write a Y-combinator in Smalltalk. As you point out you can write
>>> Function objects. You can do currying. You can do eval.
>>>
>>> Smalltalk is a dynamic fuctional object-oriented language.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Frank Shearar" <frank.shearar at angband.za.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:58 AM
>>> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
>>> <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>>> Subject: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk and functional programming
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I'm engaged in a discussion with someone
>>>> (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3527753) on whether Smalltalk is or
>>>> is
>>>> not a functional programming language.
>>>>
>>>> Now admittedly no one in the argument has defined what exactly
>>>> checkboxes
>>>> a language needs to tick to qualify as an FPL. (Also, "Foo is/is not a
>>>> Bar"
>>>> discussions tend to generate more heat than light.)
>>>>
>>>> So at any rate, my position is that because it's natural and idiomatic
>>>> to
>>>> program in Smalltalk in a functional way (see Point class and the
>>>> Collection
>>>> API - #collect:, #select:, #reduce: and friends), yes, Smalltalk is a
>>>> FPL.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure what position igouy holds. Or, rather, I know that he
>>>> (I'll just use the English male pronouns here for brevity) says that
>>>> Smalltalk's not a FPL, but I'm not sure why. He talks of there being no
>>>> way
>>>> to define named functions outside of a class as being the reason, but
>>>> I'm
>>>> sure that can't be all of it. (You can - Smalltalk at : #square put:
>>>> [:x| x
>>>> * x] - but that's hardly idiomatic.)
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, I've spent a while thinking about the matter, so I'm happy
>>>> either way.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that the _real_ reason one might label Smalltalk as not
>>>> being a FPL is mutable state.
>>>>
>>>> You can, with a smidge of discipline, happily write a functional object.
>>>> But it's just as easy to write a mutable object.
>>>>
>>>> Point is a good example of a Value Object (aka "immutable state") as is,
>>>> if I recall correctly, Rectangle: methods either return part of the
>>>> state of
>>>> an object (0 at 0 x) or, if they're state-mutating, return a new object
>>>> with
>>>> the required state (0 at 0 translateBy: 1 at 1). There's a mild hiccup here,
>>>> where
>>>> your "return a new object with new state" must initialise the new
>>>> object.
>>>> Point does this by having #setX:setY: in the 'private' category.
>>>>
>>>> But this discipline isn't enforced by the language/environment, which
>>>> for
>>>> some might be a necessary condition for FPL-ness.
>>>>
>>>> Or have I missed the point of what makes a language an FPL?
>>>>
>>>> frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>
>
>
>