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 at SmallScript.com | http://www.smallscript.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Simmons [mailto:David.Simmons at smallscript.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 8:08 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: RE: Modules and class... [ a off-topic question ?]
> 
> > -----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.
> >
>