5 ms·

I'm a bit confused about this quibble when the article text is about "Self and Smalltalk", not just Self? If anything the quibble should be "why is the section

I'm a bit confused about this quibble when the article text is about "Self and Smalltalk", not just Self? If anything the quibble should be "why is the section called Self when it's about the _two_ ur languages Self (the ur language for prototype based OO) and Smalltalk (the ur language for class based OO)"?

vidarh 4y ago
The title is "Self (object oriented programming)" and it ends with "Self disposed of the notion of class and worked solely with objects. As this is a purer form, I have chosen Self as the type specimen for this ur-language", so while it gives Smalltalk the space it deserves, it then turns around at points out Self as the ur-language for OO.
- TheRealPomax 4y ago
  You seem to confuse "ur language" for meaning "the original that others came from", which makes sense if you're familiar with the term "ur", but is not how this article uses the term. They use it to mean type specimen (as noted in the article). As type specimen, Self makes a lot more sense: it took the OO concepts pioneered by Smalltalk and then made them even more OO.
  - vidarh 4y ago
    As type specimen self makes less sense to me. In that sense it might make sense as the ur-language of it's own type (prototype-based OO languages), but it's too specific to be a specimen of the overall OO category. I don't agree it made the concepts more OO in any sense. Self's changes feel far less significant than what Smalltalk brought to the table. That an object inherits it's structure and functionality from something that is itself an object is true of all Smalltalk derived languages I'm aware of, after all.
    - TheRealPomax 4y ago
      Smalltalk says "objects are instances of some class of thing", whereas Self went "no, objects are just objects, and what class of thing they are is mutable". Since we can get from Self's model to Smalltalk's model by adding restrictions on what you can do to both objects and prototypes, Self is quite objectively a better type specimen. I wouldn't call it an "ur language", that was a silly choice in term, but as basis for discussing OOP models, it's the most permissive, and you can get the other OOP models by adding various (sets of) restrictions. (Much like how a regular grammar is a context free grammar with additional rules)
      - vidarh 4y ago
        I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I don't agree with you at all that it is "objectively a better type specimen". I'd argue it's not even a good type specimen, in that it shares fewer characteristics with the majority of OO languages than Smalltalk does. The defining aspect of OO languages if we go by Kay is message passing and late binding. How that is achieved is secondary to the classification. Both Self and Smalltalk provides that, but Smalltalks way of providing that is more typical of the class of languages as a whole. To me, either Kay is authoritative, or we go the other direction and include more of the ALGOL-derived languages. In neither case is Self a good representative of what OO languages are like, and that to me makes it a poor type specimen.
        TheRealPomax 4y ago
        He was absolutely authoritative, but: back in the early days of OOP. Both the meaning and fundamental aspects of OOP have changed (quite a bit) since then, and what Kay called OOP might be the historical forefather to, but not current type specimen of, OOP. So yeah, we'll have to disagree.

vidarh 4y ago

The title is "Self (object oriented programming)" and it ends with "Self disposed of the notion of class and worked solely with objects. As this is a purer form, I have chosen Self as the type specimen for this ur-language", so while it gives Smalltalk the space it deserves, it then turns around at points out Self as the ur-language for OO.

TheRealPomax 4y ago
You seem to confuse "ur language" for meaning "the original that others came from", which makes sense if you're familiar with the term "ur", but is not how this article uses the term. They use it to mean type specimen (as noted in the article). As type specimen, Self makes a lot more sense: it took the OO concepts pioneered by Smalltalk and then made them even more OO.
- vidarh 4y ago
  As type specimen self makes less sense to me. In that sense it might make sense as the ur-language of it's own type (prototype-based OO languages), but it's too specific to be a specimen of the overall OO category. I don't agree it made the concepts more OO in any sense. Self's changes feel far less significant than what Smalltalk brought to the table. That an object inherits it's structure and functionality from something that is itself an object is true of all Smalltalk derived languages I'm aware of, after all.
  - TheRealPomax 4y ago
    Smalltalk says "objects are instances of some class of thing", whereas Self went "no, objects are just objects, and what class of thing they are is mutable". Since we can get from Self's model to Smalltalk's model by adding restrictions on what you can do to both objects and prototypes, Self is quite objectively a better type specimen. I wouldn't call it an "ur language", that was a silly choice in term, but as basis for discussing OOP models, it's the most permissive, and you can get the other OOP models by adding various (sets of) restrictions. (Much like how a regular grammar is a context free grammar with additional rules)
    - vidarh 4y ago
      I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this, as I don't agree with you at all that it is "objectively a better type specimen". I'd argue it's not even a good type specimen, in that it shares fewer characteristics with the majority of OO languages than Smalltalk does. The defining aspect of OO languages if we go by Kay is message passing and late binding. How that is achieved is secondary to the classification. Both Self and Smalltalk provides that, but Smalltalks way of providing that is more typical of the class of languages as a whole. To me, either Kay is authoritative, or we go the other direction and include more of the ALGOL-derived languages. In neither case is Self a good representative of what OO languages are like, and that to me makes it a poor type specimen.
      - TheRealPomax 4y ago
        He was absolutely authoritative, but: back in the early days of OOP. Both the meaning and fundamental aspects of OOP have changed (quite a bit) since then, and what Kay called OOP might be the historical forefather to, but not current type specimen of, OOP. So yeah, we'll have to disagree.