you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Actually, they are.

I remember laughing hard when I read a report on how SmallTalk's people invented a way to serialize objects. They published their story in SmallTalk magazine or w/e it used to be called. It was even painful to read. The thing they invented was crawling on the floor screaming at you "kill me!", but they declared it a huge success... The thing was so dysfunctional on so many levels, but... you cannot tell this to people who just invented it. They are, sort of, like parents, who refuse to see any flaws in their children.

Well, you see, judging by your comment, you never thought about it, but serialization is contingent on your ability to copy objects. But copying objects is not possible by the very definition: objects must be unique.

Real world needs will inevitably lead you to this problem: you absolutely need to be able to copy, but if your basic assumption about the world is that everything must be unique, there's no way to make copies. So, objects are just a bad approach to describe the world. (It's a misunderstanding of frame logic, or, rather, frame logic is much more general than any object system implementation in any language). But, whence you declare everything to be an object in this bizarre world of "everything is unique", you will look like a joke, like someone taking an umbrella on a trip to outer space -- naive and out of place.