On 22.06.2011, at 12:05, David Corking wrote: > Erlis wrote: > >> Now I think I start understanding Jim statement, basically the statement is: >> Smalltalk (the language) adopted the classical way of OO instead the >> prototype way, so I don't have all the plasticity I was expecting... >> >> Do the smalltalkers feel this way? > > Perhaps. But Squeakers have access to other languages: notably Etoys. > It isn't often mentioned that Etoys is an implementation of the Self > computation model as a visual programming language for children. > Interestingly, almost any Morphic class can easily become an Etoys > object. (This won't be surprising to those who know that Morphic was > first built for Self.)
Indeed, and thanks for pointing it out. Adding instance-specific methods isn't hard to do in Squeak (Etoys does it), although modifying method-lookup to implement delegation is more challenging. It seems, however, that prototypes is not really what Jim and Trygve are aiming at. The paper instead mentions Traits, which indeed add a lot of flexibility to the traditional Smalltalk class model: http://www.artima.com/articles/dci_vision.html - Bert - _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners