Hi Blochl,
Thanks for the references, I'll take a look immediately.
After my last email I found the DCI mailing list and Jim and Trygve are active member, I haven't asked yet the question about what was wrong with smalltalk implementation but I'll do that and share the answer with you guys.
Thanks for all once again Erlis
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:24 AM, bb bblochl@arcor.de wrote:
** Am 21.06.2011 15:46, schrieb Erlis Vidal:
Hi guys,
I was reading recently Jim Coplien ideas about DCI and I was surprised with the following statement:
*"The Smalltalk people, when they put together Smalltalk originally the computational model was exactly right, in terms of thinking in terms of objects. And then they screwed it up with the language. The language is so class focused! Most languages that we’re saddled with today had made this error."
you can find it here: http://blog.redtexture.net/2010/06/01/coplien-on-dci-mvc/
Does someone knows what Jim is criticizing? In which sense the computational model was screwed by the language? I see smalltalk as a language that express very well the intended computational model behind.
But that's just me, maybe some of you could help me to understand Jim's point.
Thanks Erlis
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.orghttp://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
As I actually found, there already is an implementation of a DCI-System in Squeak/Smalltalk. You can find an article, a documenation and a download on http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/themes/babyide/babyide-index.html
Also given is a DCI-Maillist: object-composition (at) googlegroups.com.
One might be interested in "The Common Sense of Object Oriented Programming" by Trygve Reenskaug http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/2009/commonsense.pdf
Regards
B. Blochl
Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners