Re: [squeak-dev] Kay's Little Blue Book, or, Let's Just Do It! (was Re: The Gospel of Alan)
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel@merlintec.com wrote:
Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
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 ;)
Well I hope so! :-)
Given how happy he said he was to not have any disciples, he might be less than amused to find out otherwise ;-)
Going to the other extreme, where everyone's opinion is equally valid, leads to situations like a guy explaining to me on comp.lang.lisp that multiple dispatch is the most important feature of OOP and so CLOS and C++ are true OO languages but Smalltalk is not.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/b2aa1842c...
I know I shouldn't react, but could you just dissect for me how Alan's post, either the one before or the one after the post of yourself you linked here, makes the point you're suggesting him to be making?
Is it the 'I've no idea where I'm going with this.' part perhaps?
/Ties
On 26.11.2008, at 22:38, Ties Stuij wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel@merlintec.com
wrote: Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
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 ;)
Well I hope so! :-)
Given how happy he said he was to not have any disciples, he might be less than amused to find out otherwise ;-)
Going to the other extreme, where everyone's opinion is equally valid, leads to situations like a guy explaining to me on comp.lang.lisp that multiple dispatch is the most important feature of OOP and so CLOS and C++ are true OO languages but Smalltalk is not.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/b2aa1842c...
I know I shouldn't react, but could you just dissect for me how Alan's post, either the one before or the one after the post of yourself you linked here, makes the point you're suggesting him to be making?
Is it the 'I've no idea where I'm going with this.' part perhaps?
I know I shouldn't respond, but did you read further up in the thread, where Alan (Crowe) described how even the "simplest" things are impossible without multiple dispatch, which made him despise Smalltalk on his first encounter, an event he recites quite colorfully, with phrases like "I found this incomprehensibly awful. It completely destroyed the object metaphor. [...] I fled in horror from this hideous, mutilating language."
- Bert -
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Bert Freudenberg bert@freudenbergs.de wrote:
On 26.11.2008, at 22:38, Ties Stuij wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel@merlintec.com wrote:
Tony Garnock-Jones wrote:
Bert Freudenberg wrote:
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 ;)
Well I hope so! :-)
Given how happy he said he was to not have any disciples, he might be less than amused to find out otherwise ;-)
Going to the other extreme, where everyone's opinion is equally valid, leads to situations like a guy explaining to me on comp.lang.lisp that multiple dispatch is the most important feature of OOP and so CLOS and C++ are true OO languages but Smalltalk is not.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/b2aa1842c...
I know I shouldn't react, but could you just dissect for me how Alan's post, either the one before or the one after the post of yourself you linked here, makes the point you're suggesting him to be making?
Is it the 'I've no idea where I'm going with this.' part perhaps?
I know I shouldn't respond, but did you read further up in the thread, where Alan (Crowe) described how even the "simplest" things are impossible without multiple dispatch, which made him despise Smalltalk on his first encounter, an event he recites quite colorfully, with phrases like "I found this incomprehensibly awful. It completely destroyed the object metaphor. [...] I fled in horror from this hideous, mutilating language."
There you go, proof I shouldn't have reacted. That sounded a lot more partisan and inflammatory. As we have come to expect from the cesspool that is c.l.l.. One should put a big lid on it, and not open it for a thousand years. Its noise-creating powers has even spilled over to squeak-dev, and here's another post to prove that point. Totally out of my control of course...
/Ties
Ties Stuij wrote:
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
Going to the other extreme, where everyone's opinion is equally valid, leads to situations like a guy explaining to me on comp.lang.lisp that multiple dispatch is the most important feature of OOP and so CLOS and C++ are true OO languages but Smalltalk is not.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/b2aa1842c...
I know I shouldn't react, but could you just dissect for me how Alan's post, either the one before or the one after the post of yourself you linked here, makes the point you're suggesting him to be making?
Is it the 'I've no idea where I'm going with this.' part perhaps?
Sorry - I gave a link to the first result that was in the thread I was remembering (this was three years ago, after all). The actual discussion I was thinking of was between Pascal Costanza and Alan Crowe much closer to the start of the thread (message 48 or so). My point was that dicussions become harder when everyone's definitions are equally valid. See the confusion around strong/weak/static/dynamic typing, for example.
-- Jecel
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Bert Freudenberg -
Jecel Assumpcao Jr -
Ties Stuij