election details *PLEASE READ*
Todd Blanchard
tblanchard at mac.com
Thu Feb 22 01:14:48 UTC 2007
I'm well aware (and a big fan of) Philippe's work.
In fact, I built this with it: http://objectiveclips.com
Last I checked - ProjectX was using it for its constraints mechanism.
-Todd Blanchard
On Feb 21, 2007, at 2:03 PM, Roel Wuyts wrote:
> Not that all of these languages are object-oriented programming
> languages. Several features found in functional, logic or
> constraint languages might be interested to integrate. Note the
> (really excellent) paper of Philippe Mougin and Stephane Ducasse,
> that integrated APL-like constructs with Smalltalk collections.
>
> OOPAL: Integrating Array Programming in Object-Oriented
> Programming , Philippe Mougin, Stéphane Ducasse. OOPSLA 2003 (18th
> Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming,
> Systems, Languages, and Applications). Technical Paper, October
> 2003, Anaheim, USA.
>
> On 21 Feb 2007, at 21 February/09:55, Todd Blanchard wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> I must admit I'm not particularly impressed with that overall
>>> assessment.
>>
>> Then don't vote for me. Sheesh.
>>
>> Given that AFAICS you've spent the better part of your career
>> hacking Smalltalk rather than working in the mudpits, I'm not
>> giving your view from a distance a lot of weight.
>>
>> I have years of full time development in these languages - C++
>> expert, Java expert, Objective C expert. Smalltalk - I'm just
>> pretty good.
>>
>> Namespaces I've seen the effect of in C++, Java and VW. I think
>> they are a bigger PITA than they are worth. Honestly, I prefer
>> sticking two letter prefixes in front of stuff.
>>
>> Modules are so overloaded you'll have to define what you mean.
>>
>> Interfaces - not a fan of the hardwired interface ala Java. I do
>> like informal protocols as implemented in ObjectiveC.
>> Specifically, I like that I can define a protocol, and then ask an
>> object if it conforms to the protocol without having to go back
>> and say "this object will implement this protocol". Not that
>> explicit protocols isn't occasionally useful, but I think the
>> current subclassResponsibility mechanism gets the same point across.
>>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|