Kilon, I believe there's a subtle difference between Python, Java, Ruby and Scala on one side and Smalltalk on the other: All those 4 languages are more or less implemented as OO languages with the famous statement "everything is an object". However they are syntactically and semantically designed in a way that they allow a not OO design to be coded. Just imagine the small problem I shared in this thread; in any of those languages I can do it with one class and a couple of static methods and the code will definitely *read and work naturally correct*.
On the other hand, consider Smalltalk: "everything is an object", but the syntax and semantics of the language is different. Yes, it allows a not OO design to be coded but there's a difference: think about my small problem again. The moment I thought about coding it the old style (single class with static methods) something started to smell. It smelled so bad that I had to consult you folks. That's what I'm talking about: a tiny but subtle and well thought out difference in the syntax and semantics and it makes a huge difference. Another example: I -like all of you- had studied, heard, read and practiced bottom-to-top design and I thought I knew what it meant. However, the moment I started coding in Lisp I found out I knew little about that paradigm. The natural subtle semantic design of Lisp made it a natural bottom-to-top platform nothing like any other platform I had seen until then. On 11/13/2013 18:27, kilon alios wrote: > I dont know exactly what you mean by eforced OOP by design. Pharo > design principles are not written in stone, just good habits people > picked along the way and they are to be found in python as well. > Python actually takes OO very deply , sure if , else, while are > language constructs but rest assured that everything else is an > object. For example unlike Pharo , python allows to do procedural > programming , but python functions are objects in disguise . You could > say that python functions work similarly (but not the same , since > closures are not supported in python) to Pharo blocks. > > Ruby is even closer to Pharo, supporting blocks, message passing etc. > Also those kind of languages take clean design in code, very > seriously. Just go to python interpreter console and do "import this" > and you will see the zen of python unfold before your eyes emphasizing > the good design principles you will find many smalltalkers talking > about. Another language taking these principles very seriously is > Lisp, actually Smalltalk took a lot from lisp in terms of overall > design and direction. > > Of course clean code in the end is a choice , there is no enforcement, > you will find plenty of ugly code in Pharo, Python, Ruby and Lisp . > There is no capital punishment for coders that don't follow these > principles. Many coders care only for getting the job done and feel > like they dont have time to worry about how clean their code is. Its a > free world, or so we hope. > > On the other hand everything should be put into context and never > taken as the Holy Bible or Holy Grail. > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Bahman Movaqar <bah...@bahmanm.com > <mailto:bah...@bahmanm.com>> wrote: > > @Sven > > There is not necessarily a right and a wrong way. Design is hard to > > explain, I am not going to try. Sorry ;-) > > Of course! I was just trying to find out the design *norm* for a > small > problem; to become familiar with the popular way of thought among > Smalltalk'ers. > > @kilon > Thanks. I think that may be what I need: real world examples. > > As I have already admitted, I am not used to Smalltalk way of > thinking. > This is the first language I know, that enforces OOP by design, > none of > Java, Python, C++ or Scala does. It's ironic; OOP concepts and > techniques were among the first things I was taught back in University > but now the more I think about Smalltalk's syntax and design, the > more I > get closer to the conclusion that I didn't use pure OOP many times > during my career. And, I believe, it was simply because the > development > platforms never enforced it the way Smalltalk does: in a clever and > camouflaged way. > > > But please do have a look at the Chronos library, it even has a > PersianCalender, among many others. > > I knew about Chronos. Someone here, kindly suggested it about 6 > months > ago when I asked about such a thing. I'm not trying to re-write > something like Chronos rather I'm trying to get my hands dirty with > Pharo and also re-visit my OOP skills. Thanks. > -- Bahman Movaqar (http://BahmanM.com) ERP Evaluation, Implementation & Deployment Consultant PGP Key ID: 0x6AB5BD68 (keyserver2.pgp.com)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
