Re: Is OOP a paradigm or methodology?

Smalltalk is the starting point of linear model (followed by Java and
C# using a C++ syntax). I have presented some of the limitations of the
linear model in:

http://distributed-software.blogspot.com/2005/07/linear-models-and-aspect-oriented.html

The term "proved" is not in reference to a previously published paper.
I doubt anyone will spend time to collect data for something like this.
But, a language supported so heavily by IBM should have persisted a
little longer. The biggest problem for IBM was managing the notion of
concurrence that it had to throw into Smalltalk. But the users found it
difficult to deal with typeless (i.e. dynamic typing) global names. So,
there were many reasons that slowed down the use of Smalltalk (you may
know a few more).

Now, Eiffel is of an entirely different class, and it has been the
source of some of my inspirations. However, Eiffel has been around
longer than C++ by several years, presented in many conferences etc.
Eventually it had to support such things like COM etc (that are not at
the same class as Eiffel's abstraction) to spread itself.

The problem, in my opinion is its lack of support for the notion of
Global Space, and insisting on absolute view of object-orientation.
Well, not everything is an object. How about a small global function
that prints "Hello World"? Does this really have to be a method of some
class? Should object-oriented view completely disregard functional view
(in that, only methods are allowed)?

Perhaps the wording "proved ... limiting" could be interpreted as not
becoming wide spread, even though IBM essentially bought all the pages
of the IEEE Computer to push Smalltalk (sometime in 1995-1996). The
jump was quite visible, and suddenly -- deadend for adopters.

Regards,
Z.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Smalltalk Irony
    ... Here's my take on what IBM means with these lines.I defeinitely do not ... Go to www.instantiations.com/VAST if you're happy with VisualAge Smalltalk ... apps to Java or another Smalltalk, or get great ongoing support for VAST ...
    (comp.lang.smalltalk)
  • Re: Smalltalk Irony
    ... IBM might not have made money out of Smalltalk, ... > concept of automating systems management. ... > revisit all of those loyal customers around the world and restate the ...
    (comp.lang.smalltalk)
  • Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WA
    ... >> compared to Java that Smalltalk simply cannot compete in this way. ... other languages) you don't really have to make a package. ... I remember that the packager in IBM Smalltalk once had a bug where it ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Smalltalk Irony
    ... > 1) IBM drops Smalltalk, ... # IBM and business partner resources, tools, methodologies available to aid transition ... If you are a customer you better do you "business transformation" ...
    (comp.lang.smalltalk)
  • Re: Migrating a system incrementally. Was: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WA
    ... >> compared to Java that Smalltalk simply cannot compete in this way. ... other languages) you don't really have to make a package. ... I remember that the packager in IBM Smalltalk once had a bug where it ...
    (comp.object)