To Smalltalk or not to Smalltalk

     Hello,

  OK, since the argument does not seem to refer to any specifics, I figure
it can be used to advocate other technologies as well, such as:

  "I have worked on Smalltalk and systems using Smalltalk for over 40 years
now (and on Smalltalk's "non-OO" predecessors before that). The most
important thing I have learned is that while it is possible to do
object-oriented programming *without* Smalltalk, whatever alternative
technology you choose, you soon feel compelled to add features that make it
look like Smalltalk. I particularly see this whenever someone comes to me
advocating the use of Java. Smalltalk is what it is for a reason, *not*
because we arbitrarily threw something together.

  So it is not that Smalltalk "looks bad" or whatever people might be
saying. It is that other technologies and approaches "fall short" of what
object-oriented programming really needs. Let's not please reinvent things
or shove a round peg in a square hole just because someone prefers curly
braces over angle brackets. Issues like that are not interesting (at all),
and we have more important things to do."

     Take care
     Oliver

On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Helena Deus <helenadeus@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is the best argument i've ever read in favor of RDF. Fwarding from
> the lod mailing list as it may be interesting to the folks scanning this
> one and not the other
>
>
> Helena F. Deus, PhD
> Senior Scientist, Medical Knowledge Engineering
> Foundation Medicine Inc.
> hdeus@foundationmedicine.com
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *Resent-From: *public-lod@w3.org
> *From: *<Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
> *Subject: **To RDF or not to RDF*
> *Date: *June 21, 2013 9:41:56 PM EDT
> *To: *<public-lod@w3.org>
>
> existing thread, and also for probably saying things other folks have
> already brought up]
>
> I have worked on RDF and systems using RDF for over 15 years now (and on
> RDF's "non-Web" predecessors before that). The most important thing I have
> learned is that while it is possible to do Linked Data and Semantic Web
> stuff *without* RDF, whatever alternative technology you choose, you soon
> feel compelled to add features that make it look like RDF. I particularly
> see this whenever someone comes to me advocating the use of JSON. RDF is
> what it is for a reason, *not* because we arbitrarily threw something
> together.
>
> So it is not that RDF "looks bad" or whatever people might be saying. It
> is that other technologies and approaches "fall short" of what Linked Data
> and Semantic Web really need. Let's not please reinvent things or shove a
> round peg in a square hole just because someone prefers curly braces over
> angle brackets. Issues like that are not interesting (at all), and we have
> more important things to do.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Ora
>
> --
> Dr. Ora Lassila  ora.lassila@nokia.com  http://www.lassila.org
> Principal Technologist, Nokia
>
>
>
>
>