On 06/28/10 17:43, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> wrote:
> Carl Banks a écrit : >> On Jun 27, 3:49 am, Bruno Desthuilliers >> <bdesth.quelquech...@free.quelquepart.fr> wrote: >>> WANG Cong a écrit : >>> >>>> On 06/26/10 00:11, Neil Hodgson <nyamatongwe+thun...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> WANG Cong: >>>>>> 4) Also, this will _somewhat_ violate the OOP princples, in OOP, >>>>>> this is and should be implemented by inherence. >>>>> Most object oriented programming languages starting with Smalltalk >>>>> have allowed adding attributes (addInstVarName) to classes at runtime. >>>> Thanks, I have to admit that I know nothing about Smalltalk. >>> Then you really don't know much about OO. >> >> I don't really know much about Smalltalk either. >> > > Duh. I cancelled this totally stupid and useless post a couple seconds > after hitting the send button, but still too late :( > > So first let me present my apologies to WANG Cong and everyone else, > this was a crude, arrogant and totally stupid thing to say, and I > should know better. Sorry. > No problem. :) > Now on why I first wrote this (warning : personal opinions ahead): > > "object" started with Simula, but objects in Simula are mostly > glorified ADTs with type-based "polymorphic" dispatch. Smalltalk (and > all it's environment) got _way_ further by turning this into a > coherent whole by introducing messages (which are more than just > type-based polymorphic dispatch - Smalltalk's messages are objects > themselves) and "code blocks" - as the only mean to control "flow". I > believe that Smalltalk is (so far) the only "OO" language that was > innovative enough to really escape from good old procedural > programming, and as such possibly the only "True" OOPL. > > Now for various reasons (including implementation issues and > conservatism), it happened that the Simula approach to OO became the > mainstream with languages like C++ then Java, and that most of "OO" > litterature - "OOP principles", golden rules etc - is about this > somehow very restricted approach, so people being taught "OO" that way > have a very restricted - and incomplete - vision of what OO is really > about. That was how I was taught OO, and I always felt that there was > something wrong, inconsistant or missing. > > Studying Smalltalk (however briefly) was for me a real "AHA", > mind-opening moment - suddenly OO made sense as this coherent, > comprehensive and innovative approach to programming I so far failed > to find in Java or C++. > > Now I don't mean one has to master Smalltalk to be allowed to talk > about OO, nor that OO can't exist outside Smalltak (Python being IMHO > another exemple of an interesting and mostly coherent object system, > even if doesn't go as far as Smalltalk do), but - pardon me if this > seems arrogant (and please correct me if it really is) - I can't help > thinking that one cannot really understand OO whithout at least a > brief study of Smalltalk (and - once again - a full Smalltalk > environment, as Smalltalk the language is only one part of the 'full' > object system). > This sounds really cool, I think I should find some time to learn Smalltalk, even only considering historic reasons. Thanks for sharing your Smalltalk learning experience with us! -- Live like a child, think like the god. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
