Hi jz,

> hi. I've got a strange question: is squeak really an object oriented
> system  or it only claims it is?

It's really object oriented.

> the point of the question is that
> instead of working  with objects, i work mostly with text. the objects
> are in fact only in my  head, as a consequence of reading sources of
> objects which are in the  browser. but the objects are not tangible, i
> cannot see them. for example,  let's take an instance of an
> OrderedCollection: this object is in fact not an  object but a textual
> representation of it, I cannot see the collection on my  workspace and
> must simulate all its behavior on my own and imagine it in my  head.

Don't care of the type of representation for squeak's objects, you always
will have a DIFFERENTE set of objects in your mind.

> another problem is that when i am writing the source code of an object,
> i do  not work with objects again. i only manipulate text and imagine
> those  objects, but the objects are not on my workspace. i think that
> object  oriented programming should look like working with objects and
> not with text.

Today's answer: It's because you work in browsers instead of working with
inspectors and debugers.

Tomorrow's answer: We need MORE level of objects representation in Squeal.
eToys are one example of a possible path to walk.  Croquet is another.

> so, is squeak for work with objects or with text ?

With object in the image (don't care the representation they have) and with
object in your mind.

> another example: suppose that, after 3 hours of hard experimentation, i
> have  finally obtained a list of numbers which contain the results of
> my  experiments. the numbers are of great signifance to me because i am
> totally  unable to replicate them (because i do not preciselly remember
> how i obtained  them for example). let the numbers be concentrated in
> an instance of  OrderedCollection. so i have an ordered collection
> instance and numbers in  it. as next, i want to incorporate my numeric
> list in a source code of some  class. wouldn't it be logical to simply
> insert a reference to my list into  the source code in places where i
> want to use my list object? in think that  the squeak system answers:
> "no it wouldn't. you must make a textual  representation of your object
> and ...".

It's not true.  If you have a name to an object you can use it from every
place where the name is valid.

Simple example: Put your OrderedCollection in a Global variable and you
will able to use it from everywhere.

> so, are we working with objects or just manipulating text ?

Depends where you work.  If you manipulate objects from an inspector the
feeling is completly diffent.

> giving objects names and them using those names is just one way of how
> to  interconnect those objects. i want to work with objects not with
> their names,  so why should i give names to objects anyway.

To work with anObject you have to identify it from the rest of the
univers.  If you want to avoid the work to identify it every time you want
to impact on it, you can "remember" this object with a name.

> jz.

Diego

PS: I found really interesting your questions and I hope you give a chance
to my anwers.