Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pdn!alan
From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Is SELF a naughty OOP construct?
Message-ID: <3324@pdn.UUCP>
Date: 1 Jun 88 16:23:38 GMT
References: <1620001@hplb29a.HPL.HP.COM> <3313@pdn.UUCP> <7935@alice.UUCP>
Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida
Lines: 33

In article <7935@alice.UUCP> shopiro@alice.UUCP writes:
/> In article <1620001@hplb29a.HPL.HP.COM> weeks@hplb29a.HPL.HP.COM (Gregory Weeks) writes:
/> > 
/No.
/In article <3313@pdn.UUCP>, alan@pdn.UUCP writes:
/> To summarize:  SELF inappropriately forces algorithms to be dependant
/> on which method argument is the special case otherwise known as the
/> receiver of the message.
/> 
/My summary:  Object-oriented programming focuses on objects, which makes
/applications that need to focus on operations difficult.
/
/Caveat:  Focussing on objects is exactly the right approach for most
/(but not all) applications.
/		Jonathan Shopiro
/		AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ  07974
/		research!shopiro   (201) 582-4179

You confuse the idiosyncraices if ST80 with generic obejct-oriented
programming.  Specifically, why should it be a tenet of OOP that

  leftArg op: rightArg

be interpreted as sending the message "op:" to leftArg?  Why not to
rightArg?  Why not to both?  It is certainly possible to do method
lookup based on the class of more than one object.  Future OOPLs 
probably should and probably will.

-- 
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-8241; Paradyne Corporation: Largo, Florida.
Disclaimer: Do not confuse my views with the official views of Paradyne
            Corporation (regardless of how confusing those views may be).
Motto: Never put off to run-time what you can do at compile-time!