Can a low-level programmer learn OOP?

[bonnie at macbird.com]

On Jul 13, 3:20 pm, Wayne Brehaut <wbreh... at mcsnet.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:01:56 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers
>
> <bdesth.quelquech... at free.quelquepart.fr> wrote:
> >Chris Carlen a écrit :
> >> Hi:
>
> >>  From what I've read of OOP, I don't get it.  I have also found some
> >> articles profoundly critical of OOP.  I tend to relate to these articles.
>
> === 8< ===
>
>
>
> >> Hence, being a hardware designer rather than a computer scientist, I am
> >> conditioned to think like a machine.  I think this is the main reason
> >> why OOP has always repelled me.
>
> >OTOH, OO is about machines - at least as conceveid by Alan Key, who
> >invented the term and most of the concept. According to him, each object
> >is a (simulation of) a small machine.
>
> Oh you young'uns, not versed in The Ancient Lore, but filled with
> self-serving propaganda from Xerox PARC,Alan Kay, and Smalltalk
> adherents everywhere!
>
> As a few more enlightened have noted in more than one thread here, the
> Mother of All OOP was Simula (then known as SIMULA 67).  AllAlan Kay
> did was define "OOPL", but then didn't notice (apparently--though this
> may have been a "convenient oversight") that Simula satisfied all the
> criteria so was actually the first OOPL--and at least 10 years earlier
> than Smalltalk!
>
> So Kay actually invented NONE of the concepts that make a PL an OOPL.
> He only stated the concepts concisely and named the result OOP, and
> invented yet another implementation of the concepts-- based on a
> LISP-like functional syntax instead of an Algol-60  procedural syntax,
> and using message-passing for communication amongst objects (and
> assumed a GUI-based IDE) (and introduced some new terminology,
> especially use of the term "method" to distinguish class and instance
> procedures and functions, which Simula hadn't done) .
>
> As Randy Gest notes onhttp://www.smalltalk.org/alankay.html, "The
> major ideas in Smalltalk are generally credited toAlan Kaywith many
> roots in Simula, LISP and SketchPad."  Too many seem to assume that
> some of these other "features" of Smalltalk are part of the definition
> of an OOP, and so are misled into believing the claim that it was the
> first OOPL. Or they claim that certain deficiencies in Simula's object
> model--as compared to Smalltalk's--somehow disqualifies it as a "true
> OOPL", even though it satisfies all the criteria as stated by Kay in
> his definition. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulaand related
> pages, and "The History of Programming Languages I (HOPL I)",  for
> more details.
>
> Under a claim of Academic Impunity (or was that "Immunity"), here's
> another historical tid-bit.  In a previous empolyment we once had a
> faculty applicant from CalTech who knew we were using Simula as our
> introductory and core language in our CS program, so he visited Xerox
> PARC before coming for his inteview.  His estimate ofAlan Kayand
> Smalltalk at that time (early 80s) was that "They wanted to implement
> Simula but didn't understand it--so they invented Smalltalk and now
> don't understand _it_!"
>
> wwwayne
>
> === 8< ===

A couple of notes on this post.

Alan Kay has always publicly credited Simula as the direct inspiration
for Smalltalk, and if you know the man and his work, this implication
of taking credit for the first OOP language is not true, it is a
credit assigned to him by others, and one which he usually rights when
confronted with it.

You may be confused with the fact that "object oriented
programming"was a term which I believe was first used by Alan and his
group at PARC, so perhaps the coining of the term is what is being
referenced by others.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but the tone of your post conveys an animosity
that did not exist between the original Smalltalk and Simula
inventors; Nygard and Kay were good friends, and admired each others'
work very much.


Bonnie MacBird