Hello again, here's a simpler description of the modules I presented in my previous email.
A module is an object that introduces new objects and specifies changes to existing objects in imported modules. When a module is linked its changes are applied to the existing objects. When a module is unlinked its changes are undone. A module is automatically linked when a process that has the module in its environment becomes active. Process has a new instance variable called environment that points to a module. A module is IN an environment iff the environment directly or indirectly imports the module. A module is automatically unlinked when a process that does NOT have the module in its environment becomes active. Pointers that cross module boundaries are converted to identifiers when unlinked and converted back to pointers when linked. For example, a class Foo introduced in ModuleB may have its superclass Bar introduced in ModuleA, an import of ModuleB. When ModuleB is unlinked, Foo's superclass will contain the identifier #Bar. When it is linked back it will contain the class Bar. If there is no global pointing directly to Bar, its identifier will specify a path to Bar from a global, for example #Classes.Bar. Modules only deal with objects and identifiers and is independent of any class (or classless) structure.
Thanks, Anthony
Even though this list is populated by the coolest people in the industry, I have decided to take myself off this list because I am overwhealmed by trafic.
I have determined that Squeak is not appropriate for my needs at this time despite being a fairly impressive system. Squeak seems to focus on being a very practcal language and not worry too much about more arcane computer science concerns such as language safety and strong typing. As these features take center stage in my attempts at OS-implementation squeak becomes a less interesting option.
Should my OS achieve the dream of world domination, I would eagerly support a safe version of the squeak system. In the mean time, I need to de-clutter my mailbox.
Alan Grimes wrote:
Even though this list is populated by the coolest people in the industry, I have decided to take myself off this list because I am overwhealmed by trafic.
Sorry to see someone go, but this is a busy list. :)
I have determined that Squeak is not appropriate for my needs at this time despite being a fairly impressive system. Squeak seems to focus on being a very practcal language and not worry too much about more arcane computer science concerns such as language safety and strong typing.
Just wanted to comment that I don't really agree with this statement.
By strong typing I think you mean "static" typing, such as with C, C++, Pascal, Java, etc., in which all variable declarations need to have a type associated with them in the source code. Some people tend to use the term strong typing for this, but that's not really the right term. Squeak, along with Lisp, Python, Ruby, etc., use "dynamic" typing instead.
In any case, I wouldn't consider static typing an arcane computer science concern at all... most of the more popular languages these days use static typing.
In fact, I'd say the opposite of your statement is true, that the Squeak crowd tends to include more computer-science-y folks than most other languages, and relatively fewer whatever-it-takes-to-get-the-job-done "practical" people. (Perhaps generalizing a bit here. But some people occasionally complain that Squeak is too research-oriented.) Squeak is very practical for some types of things, though, of course.
As these features take center stage in my attempts at OS-implementation squeak becomes a less interesting option.
Understandable, from what I remember of what you were trying to achieve. Good luck,
- Doug Way dway@riskmetrics.com
Should my OS achieve the dream of world domination, I would eagerly support a safe version of the squeak system. In the mean time, I need to de-clutter my mailbox.
-- Waiting for a typical DOS application to crash is like waiting for hell to freeze over. http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ <my website.
I have determined that Squeak is not appropriate for my needs at this time despite being a fairly impressive system. Squeak seems to focus on being a very practcal language and not worry too much about more arcane computer science concerns such as language safety and strong typing.
Just wanted to comment that I don't really agree with this statement.
Me neither. This is a very irritating statement, among other reasons because:
In any case, I wouldn't consider static typing an arcane computer science concern at all... most of the more popular languages these days use static typing.
The PL community certainly has fads, and this is one of them. Static typing is a delightful *research area*, but it's usefulness is mostly unproven. PL people don't bother -- they just publish 10-50 line neat-looking programs, make broad statements about how all the other PL guys dig static typing, too, and conclude that it must be good.
-Lex
In any case, I wouldn't consider static typing an arcane computer science concern at all... most of the more popular languages these days use static typing.
" everyone else jumps off a cliff, why not you"
The PL community certainly has fads, and this is one of them. Static typing is a delightful *research area*, but it's usefulness is mostly unproven. PL people don't bother -- they just publish 10-50 line neat-looking programs, make broad statements about how all the other PL guys dig static typing, too, and conclude that it must be good.
-Lex
You want strong typing? Look at the problems it causes JAVA wrt to Collection classes, and the LOVELY solution that JAVA came up with for 1.5.
I'm starting to think that all strongly typed OOP languages eventually end up looking like C++, as more 'features' ( hacks ) are used to work around the 'benefits' (bugs) of static typing....
"Strong Typing" is good... "garbage collection" is slow... ( compared to tracking down memory leaks? )
These dead horses get beatten alot.
-Daniel
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 09:56, Daniel Joyce wrote:
You want strong typing? Look at the problems it causes JAVA wrt to Collection classes, and the LOVELY solution that JAVA came up with for 1.5.
What's the lovely solution? As one who is forced to use Java I would like to know.
=jason
Jason Rogers jacaetevha@fast-mail.org wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 09:56, Daniel Joyce wrote:
You want strong typing? Look at the problems it causes JAVA wrt to Collection classes, and the LOVELY solution that JAVA came up with for 1.5.
What's the lovely solution? As one who is forced to use Java I would like to know.
My guess is generics. You know - like templates in the C++ world. Or something - I haven't read up on it.
regards, Göran
I had a feeling that might be the case... I don't find that to be a solution to anything though -- it's just adding more problems to an already large problem set. I have never been a fan of templates in C++ either.
=jason
On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 11:04, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Jason Rogers jacaetevha@fast-mail.org wrote:
On Sun, 2003-03-09 at 09:56, Daniel Joyce wrote:
You want strong typing? Look at the problems it causes JAVA wrt to Collection classes, and the LOVELY solution that JAVA came up with for 1.5.
What's the lovely solution? As one who is forced to use Java I would like to know.
My guess is generics. You know - like templates in the C++ world. Or something - I haven't read up on it.
regards, Göran
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Grimes -
Anthony Hannan -
Daniel Joyce -
Doug Way -
goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se -
Jason Rogers -
Lex Spoon