Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: What is Object-Oriented
Message-ID: <1095@opus.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Feb-85 20:43:36 EST
Article-I.D.: opus.1095
Posted: Wed Feb 13 20:43:36 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 04:58:28 EST
References: <3013@umcp-cs.UUCP> <117@tove.UUCP> <1631@pur-phy.UUCP>
Organization: NBI,Inc, Boulder CO
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.lang:1429 net.lang.st80:198

> I just can't resist any longer.  Here's a quote from Dan Ingalls
> "Design Principles Behind Smalltalk" article in the August '81 Byte:
> 
> 	"... Smalltalk provides a much cleaner solution:  it
> 	sends the name of the desired operation, along with any
> 	arguments, as a message ... with the understanding that
> 	the receiver knows best how to carry out the desired
> 	operation.
>...

The fundamental asymmetry between the object which does the sending and the
arguments (which are also objects) is a giant flaw in this model.

>	...Instead of a bit-grinding processor raping
> 	and plundering data structures, we have a universe of
> 	well-behaved objects that courteously ask each other to
> 	carry out their various desires."

Except that some of those objects bodily grab others (the arguments) and
cart them off to parts unknown, slaves in bondage to their nefarious
purposes.

If you can convince yourself that, in an expression such as "x+y", the
roles of x and y are FUNDAMENTALLY different--i.e., that x is active but y
is passive--then perhaps you can believe in Smalltalk.  I can't.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...Cerebus for dictator!