Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!simtel!noc.netcom.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!altinbay
From: altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk terminology - Object, Class, and Instance
Message-ID: <altinbayDAw07z.9x0@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
References: <DAsuBL.9Ir@mv.mv.com> <altinbayDAu4o3.LHv@netcom.com> <rshapiro-2706951230120001@esb.bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 14:28:47 GMT
Lines: 49
Sender: altinbay@netcom17.netcom.com

In article <rshapiro-2706951230120001@esb.bbn.com> rshapiro@bbn.com (R Shapiro) writes:
>In article <altinbayDAu4o3.LHv@netcom.com>, altinbay@netcom.com (John
>Altinbay) wrote:
>
>>Does anyone else see this as an instance :) of the classic situation
>>of a dictionary defining word A as "see B" and word B as "see A"?
>
>I don't. I see "object" and "instance" being used as synonyms. What's so
>awful about that? In Smalltalk, they *are* synonyms.
>

OK.  Let's try this again.  Suppose there are two words grzbd and wqt3d,
You don't know the meanings of these two words.  You look them up in
the dictionary.  Under grzbd, you find "wqt3d".  Under wqt3d, you find
"grzbd".  Now what?

You may have some kind of idea what "onject" and "instance" mean in
ordinary English, but in Smalltalk, they have a distinct meaning.
If these terms are defined only in terms of each other, there is a
problem.  grzbd and wqt3d may indeed be synonyms, but I sure can't
get what they mean if all I get is "A grzbd is a wqt3d", followed
somewhere else by "wqt3d" is a "grzbd".

>
>
>> Essentially, the book is defining the words
>>in terms of each other, so that it is not clear unless you're
>>familiar with the concepts what is being said.
>
>It's simply using synonyms synonymously. "Object" in Smalltalk is a
>primitive; it can't be defined in terms of anything else in the language,
>and it's silly to look for such a definition.  
>
>The only answer to the question "What, in Smalltalk, is an object?" is,
>"everything". Any value whatosever, that you can manipulate for any
>purpose and in any way, is an object (or, if you prefer, an instance).
>Even the expression of the manipulation is an object (eg, a MessageSend).
>There's nothing more primitive on which objects are built -- just other
>objects.
>

OK.  Now you *have* stated a definition in other terms.  Once you do that,
you can difine other words in terms of that.

-- 
John Altinbay   -   altinbay@netcom.com   anon-1014@twwells.com
===============================================================
There's a spirit that guides me, a light that shines for me
My life is worth the living, I don't need to see the end.
