[self-interest] Re: Grammar changes - comments?
David.Ungar at Eng.Sun.COM
Fri Sep 3 21:12:47 UTC 1999
Just a quick note: Self already allows arbitrary objects as object annotations.
(& slot annotations, too).
The environment uses this feature to implement the transporter,
and it should extensible to other uses, as well.
At 9:03 PM +0200 9/2/99, Gordon Cichon wrote:
>Steve Dekorte wrote:
>> I don't know about the other Self fans out there, but my attraction to
>> Self has to do with the power of it's namespace and object model, not
>> it's syntax.
>I think so, too. Self has a simple and general object model which makes
>it elegant. The object model is almost as expressive as the much hyped
>and never come out "object model" of Cyc. And it consists only of
>communicating objects - no classes, no variables.
>What I also like about Self, and Smalltalk/V was the kind of "multi
>language paradigm". Some things can be expressed more easily with
>one grammar, some with another. IMHO most of the "grand unified
>languages" become some sort of clumsy at certain problems.
>Well, when thinking about Self as an object model, I would like to
>propose the following extensions to the Self system:
>1) Allow arbitrary objects as object annotations.
>There are several different aspects of "declarative knowledge"
>embedded into annotations other than pure comments. Putting
>them into regular objects would provide a clean interface for
>adding other interesting types of annotations to slots.
>Imagine, you could put some sort of assertions into the annotation,
>or you could descibe some high level mathematical properties
>of your objects with the annotation. (BTW, an optimizing compiler
>could use this information to generate good code out of this)
>This would open a "dual space" - some kind of declarative
>counterpart - to the otherwise purely behavioral "knowledge"
>of self programs.
>The question I ask myself is, should these annotations be just
>like Self objects used to be, or should they be a kind of special
>objects (say: functions, clauses) designed to represent declarative
>(BTW, this is a complementary approach to mirrors which try
>to separate behavioral and declarative aspects, whereas annotations
>try to integrate these aspects possible)
>2) Replace bytecodes by something else.
>When you have a look at the Self object system, there is objects and
>messages. No classes, no variables, nothing that's not absolutely
>necessary. And it is implemented efficiently with tagged
>pointers, maps, objects ond the heap and on the stack, and a lot
>of other things.
>When I have a look at the Self bytecodes, I feel that it is an efficient
>implementation of something else.
>Well, I think I owe you the answer what this might be. I have to
>admit that I do not have a clear answer to this right now. It seems to
>be something like an abstract syntax tree.
>It currently has only two kinds of nodes: a send (which is directed
>either to nobody special or to the result of another send, and takes some
>arguments which are sends in turn), and a sequence operator that
>performs several sends one after another.
>This is the basic functionality of sequential programs.
>Looks like the behavioral counterpart of the lambda calculus.
>What would happen if you added nodes like receive or a parallel
>operator, as they are found f.e. in Occam? What is a relationship
>between a channel, a receive, and an object?
>What do you think about these ideas?
>FREE 30 DAY TRIAL FOR EGROUPS MEMBERS: Portera Tracker - all you need
>for bug & issue tracking. Access over the web & customize in minutes!
>TRY IT FREE NOW! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/847
>eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/self-interest
>http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
Sun Microsystems Laboratories
More information about the Self-interest