>"objects" is something of a generalization of the
>structured programming concepts of "function" and "data".
Components are pointers to functions+data.
Objects are things that can evolve anytime.
Sometimes the sole definition of an interface affects
 people to think that objects can't evolve (please read evolve
 as change not only it's parts and behavior but it's language).
Objects have the power to change during working.
This evolution and the change produced on us,
 defines a new Technology.
The Object Technology.
The Components approach is only Object ORIENTED techniques
 aplicable to Object ORIENTED Languages.
I have seen that people generally build with components
 because they wants to "structure" objects.

Ale.

----------
De:     	Jarvis, Robert P.[SMTP:Jarvisb at timken.com]
Enviado: 	Viernes 16 de Octubre de 1998 15:07
Para:   	'squeak at cs.uiuc.edu'
Asunto:     	"Objects" are to "Structured" as "?????" is to "Objects"

Something David N. Smith of IBM said recently on
comp.lang.smalltalk got me thinking.  During a discussion
of scientific programming in Smalltalk he said:

After all, FORTRAN is slowly creeping towards
objects (which is downright frightening).

This prompted me to reflect on the idea that the concept
of "objects" is something of a generalization of the
structured programming concepts of "function" and "data".
This further prompted me to wonder what the "next step"
is, i.e. what comes "after" objects?  What is currently
separate from the concept of "object" which can be
joined to it, thus simplifying things?  I expect that this
ties in somehow with the things Alan was talking about
earlier, with messaging, etc, but I don't see it, at least
not clearly enough to get a good grip on.  Anybody got
any thoughts on this?

Bob Jarvis
The Timken Company