No its not

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #110,964 by tuberculosis 7/22/03 6:11:20 PM 8/21/07 5:51:13 AM Reply	No its not Your example does not rely on code generation to work - it uses it as an optimization. You could (and do) make it work without the code generation. There's the razor. If the only way to accomplish a task is code generation - then the tool is not appropriate for the task. As to whether this is designed by me to punish static languages. Turnabout is fair play. :-P 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, 05:51:13 AM EDT No its not Your example does not rely on code generation to work - it uses it as an optimization. You could (and do) make it work without the code generation. There's the razor. If the only way to accomplish a task is code generation - then the tool is not appropriate for the task. As to whether this is designed by me to punish static languages. Turnabout is fair play. :-P 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 Collapse All History
Post #110,982 by JimWeirich 7/22/03 7:48:18 PM Reply	Ok, I get it. I was trying to use the law in determining when code generation is a good idea. That's not what the law is for. It is a measure of the power and/or flexibility of your implementation language. I'm ok with that. Todd: As to whether this is designed by me to punish static languages. Turnabout is fair play. :-P Heh, clever line. :-) -- -- Jim Weirich jweirich@one.net [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van As to whether this is designed by me to punish static languages. Turnabout is fair play. :-PEmde Boas)
Post #110,987 by tuberculosis 7/22/03 8:17:05 PM 8/21/07 5:51:33 AM Reply	Yep 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, 05:51:33 AM EDT Expand All History

Message Object Oriented vs Function Object Oriented - (JimWeirich) - (71) - July 21, 2003, 12:57:05 PM EDT

It's not so much a Language issue... - (ChrisR) - (28) - July 21, 2003, 01:30:46 PM EDT

Mind Games - (JimWeirich) - (27) - July 21, 2003, 03:35:18 PM EDT

The biggest difference is how one treats the interaction - (ChrisR) - (26) - July 21, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EDT

Now a Language Issue again - (JimWeirich) - (25) - July 21, 2003, 04:52:33 PM EDT

Is it "missing methods" or "invalid messages" it handles? - (CRConrad) - (23) - July 21, 2003, 05:04:43 PM EDT

Both. - (admin) - (22) - July 21, 2003, 05:08:28 PM EDT

Sorry, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. - (CRConrad) - (21) - July 21, 2003, 05:28:58 PM EDT

Needlessly pedantic, IMO. - (admin) - (20) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:53 PM EDT

OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (CRConrad) - (8) - July 21, 2003, 05:47:53 PM EDT

Lose the chip... -NT - (admin) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 05:49:48 PM EDT

OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?) -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:02:31 PM EDT

Suit yourself. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:03:29 PM EDT

You can do it (new thread) - (orion) - July 21, 2003, 07:41:37 PM EDT

FOO bad. MOO good. - (ChrisR) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:12:31 PM EDT

Mooooooo. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:16:14 PM EDT

Re: FOO bad. MOO good. - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:31:36 PM EDT

Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:35:39 PM EDT

Method VS Message - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 21, 2003, 06:42:26 PM EDT

Sure. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:56:59 PM EDT

Re: Method VS Message - (tuberculosis) - (8) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:37 AM EDT

Re: Method VS Message - (deSitter) - (7) - July 21, 2003, 11:42:24 PM EDT

Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed us? - (FuManChu) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 12:49:34 AM EDT

Re: Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed - (deSitter) - July 22, 2003, 12:59:53 AM EDT

In theory yes, in practice no - (bluke) - (4) - July 22, 2003, 06:01:52 AM EDT

You must cheat - but you must not get caught - (tuberculosis) - (3) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:33 AM EDT

Yes exactly - (bluke) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 10:31:22 AM EDT

Hmmm sounds as if - (Ashton) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 09:19:49 PM EDT

Not *so* clever - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:46 AM EDT

At that level, it is a language issue... - (ChrisR) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:00 PM EDT

DoesNotUnderstand - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:14 AM EDT

Reified Messages - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 06:50:52 PM EDT

Sounds about right to me -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:32 AM EDT

Re: DoesNotUnderstand - (deSitter) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 11:45:13 PM EDT

nil is an object -NT - (admin) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 08:04:50 AM EDT

Re: nil is an object - (deSitter) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 10:07:10 AM EDT

Re: nil is an object - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 10:49:10 AM EDT

ICLRPD - (static) - July 21, 2003, 10:53:46 PM EDT

It is a fundamental difference - (bluke) - (30) - July 22, 2003, 05:56:45 AM EDT

More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (9) - July 22, 2003, 06:28:12 AM EDT

Re: More Questions - (bluke) - (3) - July 22, 2003, 07:23:18 AM EDT

Re: More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 07:54:36 AM EDT

It relates more to the mindset - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:03:03 AM EDT

In past discussions with Freep... - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:52:34 AM EDT

Where does polymorphism fit in? - (static) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 08:42:30 AM EDT

Polymorphism via inheritance/interface - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EDT

Example - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:22 AM EDT

Re: Example - (JimWeirich) - July 22, 2003, 11:45:27 AM EDT

Statically Typed Smalltalk - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:29 AM EDT

Statically Typed MOO - (JimWeirich) - (19) - July 22, 2003, 10:41:22 AM EDT

The other possible avenue - (ChrisR) - (18) - July 22, 2003, 10:47:24 AM EDT

Do you know how they do that? - (bluke) - (17) - July 22, 2003, 10:54:10 AM EDT

Compiler generates the necessary calls - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 11:02:54 AM EDT

AspectJ is code generation - (tuberculosis) - (15) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:10 AM EDT

A comment and a question ... - (JimWeirich) - (12) - July 22, 2003, 02:19:07 PM EDT

Not really - (tuberculosis) - (11) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:27 AM EDT

Pushing the limits of Blanchard's Law - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 22, 2003, 03:57:21 PM EDT

I don't think the basic argument is so much - (ChrisR) - (8) - July 22, 2003, 04:09:32 PM EDT

Re: I don't think the basic argument is so much - (JimWeirich) - (7) - July 22, 2003, 04:35:10 PM EDT

Should probably let Todd defend his Laws....but.... :-) - (ChrisR) - (6) - July 22, 2003, 05:03:54 PM EDT

Still sounds arbitrary ... - (JimWeirich) - (5) - July 22, 2003, 05:14:31 PM EDT

On par with "Eval" - (ChrisR) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 05:20:45 PM EDT

Well said -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:08 AM EDT

No its not - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:13 AM EDT

Ok, I get it. - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:48:18 PM EDT

Yep -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:33 AM EDT

Oh yeah - (FuManChu) - July 22, 2003, 04:28:15 PM EDT

What is your reasoning for this "law"? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Sept. 21, 2003, 05:20:53 PM EDT

OT re: coming to this thread late - (drewk) - Sept. 22, 2003, 10:32:55 AM EDT

Litmus Test - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:03:41 AM EDT

Yes and No - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 07:34:46 AM EDT

Interesting comp.lang.smalltalk thread on this - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:16:51 AM EDT

iwethey.org

Without passion, there is only suckage.
84 ms