4 ms·
I think that was Alan's original conception of objects (at least as could could be implemented in Smalltalk-72).
by infinite8s 7y ago
I think that was Alan's original conception of objects (at least as could could be implemented in Smalltalk-72).
- mgummelt 7y agoNo, most Smalltalk objects were not Turing Complete. Take numbers. Numbers are objects in Smalltalk. They're not Turing Complete.
- infinite8s 7y agoHe seems to hint a bit what he meant in this HN comment - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946935. Also remember that what most people think of Smalltalk (ie Smalltalk-80) doesnt seem to be what AK thinks of Smalltalk (I get the feeling that the Smalltalk-72 approach is closer to the ideals he had in mind).
- ProfHewitt 7y agoThe Smalltalk-72 model was extremely limited. Code in the language was viewed by the interpreter as simply a stream of tokens. According to [Ingalls 1983]: "The first (token) encountered (in a program) was looked up in the dynamic context, to determine the receiver of the subsequent message. The name lookup began with the class dictionary of the current activation. Failing there, it moved to the sender of that activation and so on up the sender chain. When a binding was finally found for the token, its value became the receiver of a new message, and the interpreter activated the code for that object's class." SENDER and stack of previous senders was retained as part of the message-passing protocol, which is problematical for concurrent systems.