ur
claim, Alan Kay, the inventor of Smalltalk, just refuted your
refutation [1] (see
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/2009-July/006331.html);
_viz._:
I most definitely still think of OOP at its best as being
"biological".
[1] Kay, Alan. "[Newbies] Re: Smallt
ll think of OOP at its best as being "biological".
>>
>>[1] Kay, Alan. "[Newbies] Re: Smalltalk Data Structures and
>>Algorithms." The Beginners Archives. Squeak.org. 24 July 2009. 27 July
>>2009.
>><http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail
rwarding your
>claim, Alan Kay, the inventor of Smalltalk, just refuted your
>refutation [1] (see
>http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/2009-July/006331.html);
>_viz._:
>
>>I most definitely still think of OOP at its best as being "biological".
>
great about it. In 1970 I was at the Stanford AI
>Project on a postdoc and I started playing around with various kinds of
>interpreters.
>
>b. In 1971 at PARC we had the wonderful funding to be able to try to really
>make all this happen, and I started thinking about a programming language
On Friday 24 Jul 2009 6:48:30 pm David Mitchell wrote:
> I think K.K. is referring to the writings of Alan Kay, who is pretty
> authoritative when it comes to Smalltalk. In his paper, The Early
> History of Smalltalk, published by the ACM in History of Programming
> Languages II (1993).
Thanks, Dav
t wishes (and happy reading)
Alan
> From: Benjamin L. Russell
> Date: 24. Juli 2009 03:37:04 GMT-03:00
> To: beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: [Newbies] Re: Smalltalk Data Structures and Algorithms
> Reply-To: "A friendly place to get answers to even the most
I think K.K. is referring to the writings of Alan Kay, who is pretty
authoritative when it comes to Smalltalk. In his paper, The Early
History of Smalltalk, published by the ACM in History of Programming
Languages II (1993).
"My biology minor had focused on both cell metabolism and larger scale
mo
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:25:34 +0530, "K. K. Subramaniam"
wrote:
>Concepts in Squeak have their origins
>in biology rather than in computational math. The boundary between 'hardware'
>and 'software' is blurry. See the reading list at
> http://www.squeakland.org/resources/books/readingList.jsp
>
On Monday 29 Jun 2009 3:27:30 pm Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
> Fascinating. So an object is an abstract representation of a gene,
> rather than a blueprint for a computational process This is a
> revelation.
"In computer terms, Smalltalk is a recursion on the notion of computer itself.
Instea
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, K. K. Subramaniam wrote:
> On Monday 29 Jun 2009 10:07:30 am
> Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
> > Is there a counterpart to SICP (_Structure and
> Interpretation of
> > Computer Programs_; see http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/) focusing on
> > roughly the same topics from a purely ob
On Monday 29 Jun 2009 10:07:30 am Benjamin L. Russell wrote:
> Is there a counterpart to SICP (_Structure and Interpretation of
> Computer Programs_; see http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/) focusing on
> roughly the same topics from a purely object-oriented standpoint, but
> using Smalltalk, in particul
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:57:49 +0530, "K. K. Subramaniam"
wrote:
>On Friday 26 Jun 2009 2:59:13 am Frank Church wrote:
>> Are there any books that cover this area for Smalltalk
>Yes. See http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html for an annotated list.
>
>BTW, Smalltalk is a object-based system
12 matches
Mail list logo
