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!