Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!world!mv!usenet
From: rapp@lmr.com (L. M. Rappaport)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk/2 article in JOOP
Message-ID: <DIK108.B8C@mv.mv.com>
Organization: L. M. Rappaport & Associates, Inc.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 15:44:34 GMT
References: <492fg7$brv@mellom.ifi.uio.no>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lmr.com
Lines: 25

kjelll@ifi.uio.no (K.Larsen) wrote (with possible editing):

>In nov/dec issue of JOOP there is a lengthy article by someone
>trying to address what he feels are the weak sides of Smalltalk
>by proposing features for 'enhanced' Smalltalk, Smalltalk/2.
>I think some of his suggestions are good, but much of what he 
>suggests is directly picked from C++, f.ex private,protected and
>public methods. I reacted emotionally when I saw that, and began
>to wonder whether this person actually had much experience in using 
>either of the languages.
>Anybody read this article, what do you think of his suggestions?

Just got my copy, and am going off half-cocked (haven't read the
article yet!), but coming from another OO language, the one problem
I've had with ST is that there is no protection.  In my other life, I
made good use of exported, protected, and hidden instance variables
and methods.  I found them quite helpful in documenting a user
interface.  

I suppose I ought to read the article and then come back.  :-)

Larry
--
rapp@lmr.com

