Re: To Smalltalk or not to Smalltalk

Very funny. I wanted to say something in favor of Common Lisp but thought it probably would be counter-productive. ;-)

- Ora

--
Dr. Ora Lassila  ora.lassila@nokia.com  http://www.lassila.org
Principal Technologist, Nokia


From: ext Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com<mailto:curoli@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:53 PM
To: Helena Deus <helenadeus@gmail.com<mailto:helenadeus@gmail.com>>
Cc: HCLS hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
Subject: To Smalltalk or not to Smalltalk
Resent-From: <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org<mailto:public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 3:54 PM


     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<mailto: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<mailto:hdeus@foundationmedicine.com>



Begin forwarded message:

Resent-From: public-lod@w3.org<mailto:public-lod@w3.org>
From: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com>  http://www.lassila.org
Principal Technologist, Nokia