Sigh. My own hasty writing typos are bad enough. But when Outlook steps in and helps me it seems to be worse.
I.e., what is a "heterogonous" system :)
It should have read "heterogeneous system".
-- Dave S. [SmallScript Corp]
SmallScript for the AOS & .NET Platforms David.Simmons@SmallScript.com | http://www.smallscript.org
-----Original Message----- From: David Simmons [mailto:David.Simmons@smallscript.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:08 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: RE: Modules and class... [ a off-topic question ?]
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-
admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:38 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: RE: Modules and class... [ a off-topic question ?]
On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, David Simmons wrote:
[snip]
How does one meta-object protocol extensibility for supporting
different
types of "namespaces"?
I.e., if the answer is not in classes then the design is the
result
of
not thinking in pure OO terms and reflection/meta-object protocol.
[snip]
Not dipping too deeply into the debate, I still wish to ask: Doesn't
this
rule out prototype (or even wackier) object systems? Purity of OO
and
*systmaticisty* of OO and *consistency* of the OO are not *exactly* congruent (and its not clear that these all have inherent or strong value).
Absolutely true. They are not necessarily congruent. However, they are also not "class" based OO systems. Therefore, they introduce other notions like "traits" in the case of "SELF".
There are deeper principles regarding unification and synergy within a meta-system, that I am slowly building up to. However, to do so
requires
that we first establish some common ground; frames of reference and understanding.
The two leading/premier pure OO (reflective and dynamic) architectures are in Smalltalk and in the CLOS meta-object protocol systems. Among many non-mainstream works, there has also been some very important mainstream work done in various systems at Apple through the 90's, and in architectures like the Sun JDK and Microsoft's COM and .NET
platform.
So the conversation needs to start somewhere to identify and build on first principles. We also need understand/agree-on the scope of the problem that is actually being addressed.
Specifically, the scope of the modularization and componentization problem that today's software engineering solutions require, and the challenges faced in just in time integration of heterogonous systems.
-- Dave S. [www.smallscript.org]
Or, so it would seem! To me at least.
Cheers, Bijan Parsia.