Re: Clean Object Class Design -- Circle/Ellipse

[Quoted] James A. Robertson wrote in message <3B8A6798.A8F25218_at_mail.com>...
>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>> >> >A specific Circle is not an instance of Ellipse. It is an instance of
>> >> >Circle.
>> >>
>> >> An instance is not a value -- it is a variable.
>> >
>> >See Bob, this is a great example of how one's writings say
>> >much more about oneself than one's bibliography. In the
>> >last two posts, you've stated:
>> >
>> >1) Smalltalk is a crappy language
>>
>> Actually, I said it is just as crappy as C++, which does not say it is
>> crappy.
>>
>
>Can you list your specific complaints?

[Quoted] We can start by observing that Smalltalk, like C++, makes insufficient distinction between values and variables.

[Quoted] Perhaps, Richard would like to list his specific complaints that are pertinent to the discussion at hand? Or would you like to offer one or more?

>> >2) Instances are not values.
>> >
>> >Since Smalltalk *has* instances that are values (the number
>> >5 comes mind),
>>
>> If you disagree with my definition of instance or with my equating the
term
>> to variable, you are welcome to provide an alternative definition. I
might
>> even agree with it.
>>
>> If a value is an instance and a variable is an instance, then I wonder
what
>> an instance is and why we should care about instances.
>>
>> >I think a pattern is forming.
>>
>> I agree. You react to Date's work with derogation, denigration and ad
>> hominem, and you provide no real content. You react to C++ with
denigration,
>> and you provide no real content. You disagree with a definition I
propose,
>> and... well, you get the picture.
>
>--
>James A. Robertson
>Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
>jarober_at_mail.com
><Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
Received on Sat Sep 01 2001 - 04:25:29 CEST