Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!tina.mrco.carleton.ca!knight
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk/2 article in JOOP
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: tina.mrco.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <knight.818006678@tina.mrco.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: The Object People
References: <492fg7$brv@mellom.ifi.uio.no> <DIK108.B8C@mv.mv.com> 	<49cfcm$2ag@macondo.dmu.ac.uk> <49gibd$hpa@news0.accent.net> <yf3ka4fcf34.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 16:04:38 GMT
Lines: 89

In <yf3ka4fcf34.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk> piercarl@sabi.demon.co.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>>>> On 29 Nov 1995 02:59:57 GMT, knight@acm.org (Alan Knight) said:

>Alan> talking about. Perhaps it's someone from the Piercarlo Grandi
>Alan> school of language discussion, "working today to solve the
>Alan> problems we faced 15 years ago".

>Please refrain from venting frustration over your own limits at people
>that have bothered reading books and don't think it is a high minded
>approach.

Right. That does it. Flame mode is ON.


I am not venting frustration at my own limits. I'm making fun of you.

In my opinion you have demonstrated a thorough lack of understanding
of the very basis of object orientation as well as Smalltalk, and you
continue posting prodigiously despite these having been pointed out to
you by a number of very knowledgeable people (I note two Smalltalk
Report columnists, one book author, three Smalltalk implementors,
and that's just out of my own personal knowledge of who these people
are).

I have read "Smalltalk-80: The Language and it's Implementation". It's
a very useful basis, and can serve as the basis of much discussion,
but that doesn't make it the bible. There are features in every
implementation of the language today which you persist in insisting
cannot be considered because they aren't described in the book (e.g.
subclassses of nil). Frankly, I suspect they were in the original
implementation too, because there's nothing about the way the language
works that makes them difficult. I don't know, because I wasn't there.
My Smalltalk experience is only 7 or 8 years full-time, much less than
someone like Jan Steinman, who might actually know.

We are on the verge of having an ANSI standard for Smalltalk, and
while all the details are not yet resolved, it's not difficult to know
the basics of what will be in there. This seems to me a much more
useful basis for discussion than a book which is now 15 years old, and
which isn't all that detailed a description of the language.

Despite your assertions about being locked in to proprietary versions,
there is a very large portable subset of Smalltalk, and we, as well as
other companies deliver applications which are 95+% source code
identical and run on all the major dialects.

>Your paraphrase of my position is a fraud and a fabrication, in the face
>of repeated statements by myself that I don't consider Smalltalk-80 as
>the current definition of the ``Smalltalk'' language (whatever that is),
>but that despite it being over ten years old, it's still the only
>possible base on which to have a discussion about ``Smalltalk'' and its
>properties.

It is clearly not the only possible base, because lots of us seem to
get by quite nicely discussing Smalltalk in other ways. You also
sidestep the issue of many of the things in the book being completely
out of date by dismissing them as part of the "library" rather than
the language itself. Smalltalk _is_ the library. The basic language
itself consists only of some trivial syntax aspects. If you wish to
discuss only those, I'd be happy to use the blue book as a reference. 

>To avoid being recognized as a proven liar, you will have to find a
>passage where I am expressing anything like the concept "working today
>to solve the problems we faced 15 years ago".

You have consistently made reference to problems that I and many
others consider to no longer exist. That was the basis for my summary
of your position. I consider it accurate. 

Frankly, I don't care if you consider me a liar or not. I merely wish
you would stop posting to comp.lang.smalltalk. In order to achieve
that goal I suppose I shouldn't post this, since the best thing to do
would be ignore you and hope you go away. Apologies to the rest for
increasing the flame bandwidth. 

P.S. In order to avoid being recognized as a proven liar, you will
have to find a passage where I am expressing anything like the concept
that reading books is a high-minded approach.

-- 
 Alan Knight                | The Object People
 knight@acm.org             | Smalltalk and OO Training and Consulting
 alan_knight@mindlink.bc.ca | 509-885 Meadowlands Dr.
 +1 613 225 8812            | Ottawa, Canada, K2C 3N2

WARNING: PIERCARLO GRANDI CONSIDERS ME A PROVEN LIAR, SO ALL MY
STATEMENTS ARE PROBABLY WORTHLESS AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED

