Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-26 Thread Oleg Goldshmidt
Moshe Zadka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an IA object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-26 Thread Moshe Zadka
On 26 Jul 2000, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: SICP is excellent, more for general understanding of computing, but you can learn scheme from it, no doubt. For questions like this, I would also recommend "On Lisp" by Paul Graham. In Graham's language, lisp (or scheme) is a tool for buyilding

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-25 Thread Omer Musaev
Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA OmerM started something... IA IA http://iglu.org.il:8080/Zen/SchemeBook IA No, I mean dead-tree book. The thing you can read while... let's say stuck in traffic jam on Jabotinsky street. Something like the Camel (or maybe the Llama) book.

OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Ira Abramov
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Ury Segal wrote: C++ is an object-oriented programming language? Gimme a break. YOU do not define what is an OO language. The world aroud you, which you obviously Ignore, defined, long time ago, that C++ is an OO language. I don't think one can decide whether C++

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ira Abramov wrote: b. a symposium we could organize with Vadik, Ury, Zadka, Chen, Gaal and other illuminaries (pun intended) of this list giving their definitions of OO. we may not agree but we will ALL be wiser, and it's better than this stupid flamewar. and before

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Moshe Zadka wrote: Ok, if people really want this (please answer to me personally) I can organize a "what is OO?" symposium. Ira, can you send me the contact info for the guys at SGI? One more note: I'll argue any way other people don't, so I'll have to have your views

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Shachar Shemesh
onday, July 24, 2000 9:29 AM Subject: OO no... here we gOO again... On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Ury Segal wrote: C++ is an object-oriented programming language? Gimme a break. YOU do not define what is an OO language. The world aroud you, which you obviously Ignore, defined, long time ag

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo
SS Suppose C++ has a great feature, which makes writing easily SS maintainable code a brease, but is not in the "official" OO SS specification. Obviously, C++ is not an OO language in that SS respect, but who cares? We can also suppose C++ hasn't some of features that are in "official" OO

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Ira Abramov
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA what OO is, and that is a rather personal view. I heard some people say IA Java (which Sun dubs "pure OO") is not OO at all, since "if" statements IA are not objects and there are primitive types, others said that even Erm? Why

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo
IA I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an IA object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I can imagine language where sytax constructs are objects. Even makes me curious. Good book on Scheme, anyone?

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Ira Abramov
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an IA object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I can imagine language where sytax constructs

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA what OO is, and that is a rather personal view. I heard some people say IA Java (which Sun dubs "pure OO", is not OO at all, since "if" statements IA are not objects and there are primitive types, others said that even Erm? Why

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Ira Abramov wrote: On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA what OO is, and that is a rather personal view. I heard some people say IA Java (which Sun dubs "pure OO") is not OO at all, since "if" statements IA are not objects and there are

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: IA I was once told that in Scheme (and IANASP) an "if" statement is an IA object in itself. I'll be learning scheme next year and be able to tell Well, I don't know what for, but OK - I can imagine language where sytax constructs

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo
MZ Let me clarify the muddy waters: in no language I'm aware of, is "if" an MZ object. In most sane languages (Scheme, Python, Smalltalk), a boolean is MZ an object. In smalltalk, a boolean has a method called ifTrue which Ahh... that's boring. Just another way to write the same. -- [EMAIL

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo
IA OmerM started something... IA IA http://iglu.org.il:8080/Zen/SchemeBook IA No, I mean dead-tree book. The thing you can read while... let's say stuck in traffic jam on Jabotinsky street. Something like the Camel (or maybe the Llama) book. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] \/ There shall be

Re: OO no... here we gOO again...

2000-07-24 Thread Moshe Zadka
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo wrote: MZ Let me clarify the muddy waters: in no language I'm aware of, is "if" an MZ object. In most sane languages (Scheme, Python, Smalltalk), a boolean is MZ an object. In smalltalk, a boolean has a method called ifTrue which Ahh...