Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!maytag!vlsi!fchan
From: fchan@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Francis Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Processor objects vs. data objects
Message-ID: <4616@vlsi.waterloo.edu>
Date: 1 Sep 89 20:53:51 GMT
References: <57069@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Reply-To: fchan@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Francis Chan)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 24

In article <57069@aerospace.AERO.ORG> abbott@itro3.aero.org (Russell J. Abbott) writes:
>
>Since *anything* can be an object there is nothing to prevent one from
>building processor objects that parallel traditional subprograms. 
> <stuff deleted>
>Of course if one uses this approach, one's code is likely to look
>somewhat more like traditional code.  In fact, couldn't any
>traditionally coded program be translated into an object oriented
>language in this way with virtually no structural change?

Yes, I have done something similar (a large rug so I can sweep the
dirt under it, anyone?). But this was due to a time pressure thing
and I didn't want to redesign much of the code. This was not a
significant piece of code but still... It has been redesigned and
recoded since.. but yes traditional programs can be ported with
little or no structural change. However, you gain almost zero
advantages given to you by the object oriented environment since
the traditional style of coding gives little thought towards
something else using its methods or the possibility of having
subclasses. i.e. reusability is essentially down the drain.

>-- Russ abbott@itro3.aero.org

Francis Chan