Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On 23/11/2024 23:48, Pancho wrote:

On 11/23/24 21:36, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 08:26:26 +0000, Pancho wrote:
>

On 11/23/24 01:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>
“Metaclasses” were just a bit of a hack to implement what Python would
call “classmethods”.

>
I think the Smalltalk idea of treating classes as objects, is the
opposite of a hack.

>
That is an elegant idea, but I don’t think it’s what Smalltalk did -- not
with metaclasses, anyway. If you look at the draft (abandoned) ANSI
Smalltalk spec <https://github.com/johnwcowan/smalltalk-standard>, it says
“because classes are not specified as the implementers of behavior,
metaclasses are not needed to provide the behavior of class objects”.
>

 The full quote...
 "Class objects have no special significance other than having names and having behaviors and state distinct from that of
their associated instance objects. Unlike classic Smalltalk definitions [Goldberg83], they are not defined as being the
containers or implementers of their instances' behavior. The techniques used to implement the behavior of objects is left to
the implementers. Finally, because classes are not specified as the implementers of behavior, metaclasses are not needed
to provide the behavior of class objects. "
 

I have already completely lost the plot. And the will to live.

I learnt Smalltalk nearly 40 years ago, needless to say I learnt from the Goldberg Smalltalk-80 bluebook, not the current spec.
 To be honest, I don't have an idea what classes not being the implementers of instance behaviour means. Where is instance behaviour implemented?
 

Mate I havent a clue what *any* of it means. It's classic compSci Gobbledygook.

 I'm actually quite unconvinced by Python.

--
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.
– H. L. Mencken, American journalist, 1880-1956