Modules and class... [ a off-topic question ?]

David Simmons David.Simmons at smallscript.com
Thu Feb 28 04:07:52 UTC 2002


> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:38 PM
> To: squeak-dev at 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.
> 





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list