Hi...

After my regeneration process (where I had a dream with seven of nine) I'm
ready to talk again...  :)

> 	i would like to ask whether some squeaker has ever seen an
> 	object which is capable of copying itself.
>
> Why is that an interesting question?  I have never seen a physical
> object that could add 1 to itself either.  Smalltalk objects are not,
> for the most part, simulations of physical objects and there is no
> reason why they should go out of their way to imitate the limitations
> of physical objects.

I disagree (more below)

[snip]
> 	so why, in smalltalk, almost every object can copy itself when i
> 	send a message to it - it seems absurd to me.  doesn't it also
> 	to you?
>
> Not in the least.  Smalltalk objects can copy themselves because it is
> *useful* for them to be able to copy themselves.  There isn't the
> slightest absurdity in being useful.  On the contrary, what is
> EXTREMELY absurd is beating Smalltalk over the head because it has
> computational objects rather than physical objects.

I disagree again.

[snip]
> One more time:
>    COMPUTATIONAL OBJECTS ARE NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS
>    AND SHARE NEITHER THEIR STRENGTHS NOR THEIR LIMITATIONS.
>    It is irrational to blame them for being different.

The Object Orientation paradigm is good just because the "computational
objects" are similar to real objects (or objects we perceive as reals (to
be matrix-compatible)).

The gap between the virtual-objects and the real ones is not zero, but we
have to go in the direction of reducing the gap and not in the direction of
make our virtual-objects more different.

We're playing with concrete objects and we're creating abtraction/reduction
to classify to univers from our first minutes as human beings.

Everybody (including all the smalltalk experts) are much more trained in
working with real objects than with virtual ones (computational objects in
your words).  If you agree with me in the last sentence surely we'll agree
on the big convenience of trying to emulate the real objects.

If we resign to the phrase "COMPUTATIONAL OBJECTS ARE NOT PHYSICAL OBJECTS"
we'll finish with just another artificial model (just like relational-
algebra, etc).

Cheers,

Diego