<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { margin-top: 0 ; margin-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [self-interest] partial conclusions about
design p</title></head><body>
<div>The difference is that I was talking about the redundancy of four
patterns,</div>
<div>and your statement, Albertina, implies that I was talking about
twenty-four patterns.</div>
<div>Thus the difference is about 20 patterns.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>- Dave</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 2:06 PM -0200 12/4/00, Albertina Lourenci wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>David Ungar wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Come on Dave! What's the difference
between my statement and your<br>
statement?<br>
In one of Albertina's recent messages, she stated that:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font size="+1">Jecel and Dave seems
to state that all the abstractions</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font size="+1">captured by the
design patterns can be implemented perfectly</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><tt><font size="+1">well in
Self.</font></tt><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> I never intended to say this, nor
do I understand how I could have seemed to say it.Perhaps Albertina
was misled by my statement that all but one of the object creation
patterns in GOF were redundant given a language like Self. -
Dave--<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>...</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Cheers</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Albertina<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div>-- <br>
<br>
<br>
David Ungar<br>
Sun Microsystems Laboratories<br>
(650) 336-2618</div>
</body>
</html>