On Sat, 24 May 2003 14:17:33 -0700, Andres Valloud wrote
> Hi.
> 
> > hi. I've got a strange question: is squeak really an object oriented
> > system or it only claims it is? 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. <snip>
> > 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 <snip>
> 
> Objects represent distinctions in the sense that you cut the whole
> universe into THIS and NOT THIS.  Of all possible things, you
> distinguish THIS from NOT THIS.
> 

your style is too "high-level", complicated. wouldn't you like to switch to 
a "low-level" style? otherwise, i will rise the objection that you are only 
misusing human language to blame me.

> The distinctions you make are based on your intentions.
> 

i haven't been thinking about this so i do not what to say.

> Although you can replicate a network of distinctions connected by
> messages which carry the information around, you cannot (so far) put
> your own intentions in the machine and let them do the work.  That could
> be why you feel you're working with "text".
> 

of course that i can put my intentions into the machine and let them do (at 
least partly) the work. i think of programming as a transmission of my 
intentions into the computer - what other than this programming could be ?

but i do not know what you mean by the "work", what work?

> In order for your network of distinctions and messages to be
> understandable to others, you need to write your code in a way that
> hints others about what your intentions were.  Hence the emphasis on
> intention revealing code.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> How are messages going to be sent from a context in which you can't
> distinguish between the recipient and everything else?  The distinctions
> corresponding to the recipients must be named, so the distinctions 
> you made can be preserved in the code as a reflection of your intentions.
> 
> Strictly speaking, objects don't exist.  What does exist are
> distinctions based on the observer's intentions.  You name 
> distinctions, not objects.
> 

i think objects exist. i am persuaded about it, you do not seem to be. look, 
you and me both know that there is something which we recognize in the world 
around us - why do you not name what we recognize OBJECTS?

> Andres.