Re: Joy of this, Joy of that

On 11/24/24 5:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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 understand. Just figure that OO means compounded
   calls with lots of dots in 'em. JS takes that to
   the ultimate extreme - and with LONG names for
   all the little objects  :-)

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.

   Well, sometimes it DOES sound like that ...
   Better to think in terms of "what you need
   to DO", functional rather than 'ideological'.
   Many langs offer good paths. For the "what"
   that may pare down to just a few. Everyone
   has "a better plan" - but in the end it's
   down to "how easily can I do what I want ?".
   Hey, MIGHT be FORTRAN or COBOL - who knows ?
   Whatever makes yer synapses tingle.

>
I'm actually quite unconvinced by Python.

   Well, TRY it a bit - in the end you'll like it.
   Easy to read, nothing TOO horrible. Libs for
   *everything* these days. Good docs.
   Was a strict 'C'/Pascal guy for a long time - but
   now I always at least proto in Python. For many apps
   where speed isn't paramount just LEAVE it in Python.