Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gumby.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!gumby!vermeule
From: vermeule@gumby.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang,net.lang.st80
Subject: Re: What is Object-Oriented
Message-ID: <316@gumby.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Feb-85 22:05:27 EST
Article-I.D.: gumby.316
Posted: Mon Feb 25 22:05:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Feb-85 12:38:36 EST
References: <3013@umcp-cs.UUCP> <117@tove.UUCP> <1631@pur-phy.UUCP> <1095@opus.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.lang:1465 net.lang.st80:207

hdhdjhdJ
J
q

ZZ> 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!

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***