On 9/7/07, Blake <blake at kingdomrpg.com> wrote:
>
>         Of course, the problem with e-mail lists is that sometimes (often?
> always?) one's sarcasm is completely and utterly missed. Which, of course,
> encourages one NOT to employ it. But as hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays
> to virtue, and let's just say a very large tribute was paid here.

Aha.  In text it can be really hard to detect unless you're suggesting
something insane like eating children. :)  Perhaps you thought you
were doing just that here, but with the crazy suggestions lately I
don't know what to expect.

>         This I was serious about. Why should an object's code need to reference
> its own context? If it's too hard for YOU to keep track of your object's
> context, how do you expect CLIENTS to do so?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.  Why should an
object's code need to reference it's own context?  Do you mean "why
should it need to explicitly state 'self'"?

And by "If it's too hard for YOU too keep track of your object's
context" do you mean I should remember if what methods my object/class
has?

>         Tim is the one who used the word "tasteless" to describe a situation
> where one doesn't constantly need to explicitly reference the current
> context.

Hrm, you mean he doesn't like it unless you constantly reference the
current context?  Is that in this thread somewhere?

> I found that amusing and ran with it. I think it's clear that the
> Smalltalk version, with its constant "self"s is very obviously clunkier
> than the one with the implicit self.

Clear to you.  To me it's uniform and consistent.  Traits I value
highly in this world of mediocre to down-right appalling language
designs.

>         Well, no, I was advocating for a more Self-like approach precisely
> =because= it is well-respected and more-or-less exactly what I'm talking
> about. (See, if context is so horrible, Self is an abomination.)

But in self it's uniform, no?  In self it's all just slots so
accessing a method looks the same as accessing a local variable.  In
that language I wouldn't expect to use self to call local methods.
But Smalltalk is different.

So do you prefer the self language?  Instead of trying to turn
Smalltalk into Self, it might be more rewarding to get a group trying
to bring Self back on track.