Hmm, just where are these prof stef Gedankenexperiments :-? I didn't see 'em in the syntax tutorial proper.
Thx for the tiny-is-beautiful article. I didn't have any moment of satori, but am happy to have found a prolific author (in addition to Richard-evangelist) About not feeling extra-illuminated ... perhaps it comes from my stance that once one lays down the ground rules that everything is an object, and that objects inherit, and get work done by doing it themselves or by delegating it, then, say, much of Boolean's implementation shakes out of that, no? (that's rhetorical) For me the value in the pharo Boolean implementation is notsomuch who passes the buck and who ultimately does what, but the synergy among objects and methods that get all this done. (BTW I'll bet the fait accompli synergy we see in today's source didn't start out that way -- there were likely many prosaic versions along the way to getting there, if not on paper then in somebody's mind. Often I find that process MUCH more valuable than the spit-and-polish of a finished product.) Recursion often has me laugh because it seems "nobody does any work" -- dang near everything is delegated elsewhere, and it's just a few base cases that actually do any heavy lifting. I'm being facetious, of course. To me interconnected object systems are often like that, and multiplied many times over -- any bit of work is delegated here, there, everywhere ... and (for me) this federated work disperses logic and makes it less immediately comprehensible. There's definitely gee-whiz appeal to the synergy of a multitude of objects in a loosely-coupled system, and IMO that appeal is valuable (which echoes the ethos of the tiny/beautiful article), but ... anyway, yeah, part of my reason for this foray into smalltalk is to see how that side lives. TLDR: the above is just my thinking out loud, possibly for a future-me to find; i have no questions; pls ignore :-) -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
