You remind me of the blub paradox

Post #110,533 by ben_tilly 7/20/03 2:12:44 AM Reply	You remind me of the blub paradox From [link\|http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html\|Beating The Averages], your complaints about "wierd languages" reminded me of it very strongly. As for defending the right of dynamically typed languages to call themselves OO, well that is a silly requirement. The phrase "object oriented" was coined (AFAIK) by Alan Kay, and he went on to design the first intentionally object-oriented language, which he called Smalltalk. I say intentionally, because he found a lot of the ideas in an earlier language known as Simula. Any decent discussion of the history of OO acknowledges this, and goes on to point out that other OO languages such as C++ then borrowed heavily from Smalltalk. Seriously, can you find me any discussion anywhere where someone with any semblance of a clue refers to Smalltalk as not being really OO? Can you find any reasonable discussions of OO that list strong-typing as needed for the concept? Or are you just trying to define convenient pre-conditions for discussion with no concern for reality? Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #110,566 by ChrisR 7/20/03 2:31:49 PM Reply	Speaking of PL History Here's my collection of [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/tx4/cus/people/\|Mug Shots]. :-) As to the question, I would that Kay has had second thoughts about using the term "Object", much prefering the concept of "Message" these days.
Post #110,636 by tuberculosis 7/21/03 12:41:06 AM 8/21/07 5:40:24 AM Reply	Kay's thinking I've seen him say something to the effect, because he thinks people have largely missed the point. Its not so much that there are classes and objects, but that there is a messaging system and every object may be thought of as a server. This is markedly different from the function calling behavior of the so-called "normal" (which are actually rather abnormal from my point of view) languages. Strong static typing, ugly algolish syntax, lack of decent garbage collection in many cases, makes for a poor cousin to true OO languages. Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations. --AndyBower Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:40:24 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #110,639 by deSitter 7/21/03 12:48:33 AM Reply	xlnt -drl

Welcome to IWETHEY!