nice argumentation, i like it. thanks.

On Fri, 23 May 2003 02:59:12 -0400 (EDT), diegogomezdeck wrote
> 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