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