Glotmorf on 21 Apr 2003 19:51:01 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] This is me trying to make sense of the game

On 4/21/03 at 1:24 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>[[1464/0: Good idea, but still flawed. How can you ever run an
>instance's "Create" method, considering that either it doesn't exist and
>therefore has no such thing, or already exists so creating it is
>unnecessary?  Plus, it's using an OO rule that has these flaws:

Well, actually, I take care of that in p1463...

>* Letting 2GOs (instances) inherit from 2GCs (classes), which makes no
>  sense

I didn't think it was necessarily desirable to create a 2GC for a single 2GO, but I suppose it's necessary to do that in order to have the class still exist when the object ceases to...Okay, but that's a fix to the rule rather than this object.

>* Distinguishing "methods that can be performed 'on' an object" from any
>  other properties or abilities it may have. This is unnecessary.

Unnecessary to distinguish values that can be altered from methods that can't be?  Properties are local to what you call the instance; methods are part of the class.

>* Not being OO itself

You're complaining that the OO rule isn't a 2GO?  We have something of a chicken-and-egg question here.  It's my opinion that the rule has to exist under the current system before it can be transformed into an object under the new system.

>Finally, you're calling the base class "Base". So anything at all that's
>object-oriented can be referred to as "a Base". That's hardly intuitive,
>and I can think of lots of other more specific things which may want to
>be called "a Base".

What do you suggest, then, as the name of the class that all other classes inherit from?


The Ivory Mini-Tower: a cyber-anthropologist's blog

spoon-discuss mailing list