Hi.

I think you always need a way to refer to objects, as Sean Charles said
the two dimensional representation on the screen is no better than a
textual representation is just another form of representation.

And when you say that you only want to use the object, but not to name
it... how do you exactly plan to do that? I mean to use the object...
perhaps you see an OrderedCollection as a box with buckets in your
screen... but that's  one form of representation, perhaps others would
like it to "view" it as text or as a pixel... so, as I see it, names are
only a way to represent/access/identify actual objects.

Jorge

> On Thu, 22 May 2003 15:54:21 -0400 (EDT), diegogomezdeck wrote
>> 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.
>
> yes, but the question is whether i will have to bother my mind with all
> those  numerous objects which could have been on the workspace in from
> of me. i  think you agree that the capabilities of human brain are
> constrained, so  the "real-time" representation of the problem i am
> currently working on IS  significant.
>
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> correct me if i am wrong, but the source code i write (and accept by
> alt-S)  in an inspector or a debugger has the properties i criticize. an
> secondly, is  there a way of how to transfer a reference to my newly
> created list of  numbers (decsribed below and previously) to an
> inspected object - the problem  is that i cannot touch my list so hi can
> i simply transfer it there?
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> that's the problem, the numeric list will be accesible EVERYWHERE and
> not  only where it is needed - i think that's inaccaptable.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> when i worked with an inspector, i did not have that feeling.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>
> but i do not want to give it a name, i just want to use it.
>
> there are numerous cases when it's better not to give an object a name
> (e.g.  not all categories which we people recognize have names, some do
> not have  names and names are not needed. when you are shaking you do
> not have to  explicitly name your state by saying "i am shaking" because
> everyone around  knows that you are shaking).
>
>> > jz.
>>
>> Diego
>>
>> PS: I found really interesting your questions and I hope you give a
>> chance to my anwers.