Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!cunews!dbuck
From: dbuck@superior.carleton.ca (Dave Buck)
Subject: Re: Why use Smalltalk as the primary development language ...
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: superior.carleton.ca
Message-ID: <DK6Dvx.8zo@cunews.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
References: <48t80p$onu@news1.delphi.com> <4aus88$jpg@news2.ios.com> <DJt00B.Muy@hplb.hpl.hp.com> <4bnc7s$rjm@news2.ios.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 04:02:21 GMT
Lines: 30

In article <4bnc7s$rjm@news2.ios.com>, vlad <vlad@gramercy.ios.com> wrote:
>gw@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Gunther Walther) wrote:
>
>>: In Smalltalk EVERYTHING is an object. It is a complete nonsence.
>
>>Did you mean "nonsence"? This sounds a bit like nonsense.
>
>I meant: nonsense....(anyway it sounds much like nonsence)
>

Forgetting, for a minute, the nonsense about nonsence :-), representing
EVERYTHING by an object is really not such a bad idea.  It makes many
operations much easier to deal with and provides lots of power.  It
eliminates the need to have confusing templates or generics and makes
the application code much more reusable.  For example, in Smalltalk,
I don't need to provide a different class for a SortedCollection of
Integers versus a SortedCollection of Floats versus a SortedCollection
of Strings.  The same class works for all of them without
modification.

David Buck
dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca

_________________________________
| David K. Buck                 |
| dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca         |
| The Object People             |
|_______________________________|


