I would like the opinion of the community on this. I have discussed
the addition of an introduction to OOP back when I was very actively
contributing to UPBE and the response I got was very positive. The
plan was similar to what I mentioned, just bare basics , making sure
that the reader understand the very basic fundamental concepts of OO,
like classes, inheritance, instances, class and instance variables,
class and instance methods etc. Essentially a chapter similar to my
video tutorials but going a bit deepers with more detailed example
still keeping it simple , clear and understandable even for non coders.
If you write something I will review it and tell you if it is ok for the
book.
If this is more or less ok, I'm ready to do a pass. so I can help if
what you write is ok.
Now I do not know your writing skills so I do not want to tell you that
this is ok without even getting a feel about what you can produce.
I want to know whether such chapter would be included because I dont
like to waste my time or the precious time of the student that has
taken the task on her shoulders.
"IMHO this is the exception to that obvious rule. OOP in particular is
misunderstood by almost everyone. If we as Smalltalkers describe it
from a forensic CS perspective that sounds to me like C++, I believe
it is better that we say nothing on the subject."
Personally I dont care if people misunderstand OOP , I only care about
getting my code to work the way I want it. So far I had no problem
doing that even though I code using very simple concept some of them
may come even back when I was coding in C++. I also dont share the
sense of wonder that some of you may share about how Smalltalk is
doing OO, coming from python does not seem such a big deal for me.
For example message passing suppose to be this super powerful feature
, that diffirentiate from method calls in the essence that the user
does not need to know the internals of the class. But I have not seen
a class that take advantage of this feature inside pharo.
sorry but I do not get the last paragraph. To me method calls are just a
different way to call message passing and I prefer message passing because
it conveys that we do not directly refer to the method but that the
method is dynamically selected.
In every single case if I had exchanged the message passing with
method calls I would not have even noticed the difference.
How could you? in Smalltalk the only to implement what you call method
calls is to access directly the method and use executeXXX on it.
In every case I have studied each message corresponds to a method with
exactly the same name.
There are plenty of methods defined with the same name in the system so
I do not get your point.
I am sure maybe one day will come handly , but I dont see why one
needs to explain a feature that rarely someone will use understand how
to code in a specific environment.
???
Stef
