Smalltalk Club

[Christopher Browne]

On 5/31/06, Chris Cunnington <cunnington-rieW9WUcm8FFJ04o6PK0Fg at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Or put another way, a Smalltalk way, if an object is an instance of a class,
> then isn't that the same thing as saying a muffin is an instance of a
> recipe? Is there a difference between the instance of a muffin and a muffin?
> If not, then why to Smalltalk people confuse the issue by using the word
> instance at all. I can guess that you need a recipe (class) to make a muffin
> (object).

Well, Smalltalk clearly fits into the set of OO languages that require
classes as a "template" for object instances.

If memory serves, Hope is a characteristic example of the "classless"
object system.

In Hope, there is no such thing as a class; what you do to create
objects is to start with an example object (there's a "base" one
around when you need to start from scratch), and then add slots as
needed.

You always instantiate objects "by example"...  "Create an object like
this one..."

The "classless" approach would be attractive for cases where you want
objects to be able to be dynamically customized.  That hasn't
generally been popular.
-- 
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linux.html
Oddly enough, this is completely standard behaviour for shells. This
is a roundabout way of saying `don't use combined chains of `&&'s and
`||'s unless you think Gödel's theorem is for sissies'.
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml