[Squeakfoundation]Re: Class Comments

[squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org]

I recall being initially befuddled by the use of "I am..." statements in 
class comments.  I also vaguely recall part of the justification for 
this approach being that the class name appearing only in code -the 
class definition and instantiating,... code- allows for a very malleable 
system. All the tools required for easily renaming a class are already 
provided within the system.  Embedding the class name in the class 
comment would be undesirable since it would replicate that datum in a 
non-code location which is NOT accessed by the provided code management 
tools ('rename', 'all references',... .)

Now if a policy for including the class name in the class comment were 
adopted along with good tools for keeping code and comments in synch 
then this little argument would hold less weight.  Just having tools and 
policy for better integrating code and comments would be nice.  :-)

One historical point I'm compelled to raise is that of the linguistic 
context for the whole Smalltalk system.  The choice of 'method' to 
replace 'subroutine'/'function' was confusing in its day and yet 
desirable for the sake of moving people out of one mode of thinking and 
into another.  The use of "accept" rather than "save" for telling the 
'live' system to both Save and Include as part of yourself this chunk of 
code was another -now seemingly quirky- choice made to convey what was 
really going on and shift ones thinking.  The use of "I am..." in class 
comments was part of that same shifting.  In a browser based environment 
it made sense to have a class (which was a first class object) describe 
itself (eg.'ClassDescription comment' messages the class 
'ClassDescription' causing it to respond with a comment describing 
itself.)  This actually implied that in fact the class was a legitimate 
entity unto itself and addressable in the same way as the system, 
'Smalltalk', was addressable.  It might seem quaint or even distracting 
now, but it was part of the subversive language that was chosen on 
purpose.  Think in terms of objects as independent/interdependent 
entities that do their own things.  Quirky?  Yes.  When introduced was 
it anymore difficult than grasping o-o concepts? No.  Does it make as 
much sense now as the new names for minor changes in 
concept/implementation (eg. subroutine->method) ?

peace,
donald


P.S.  As far as I know, at the time class comments were introduced the 
idea of making comments (with templates non-the-less) an integral part 
of the system was new and bizzar.