I would like the opinion of the community on this. I have discussed the addition of an introduction to OOP back when I was very actively contributing to UPBE and the response I got was very positive. The plan was similar to what I mentioned, just bare basics , making sure that the reader understand the very basic fundamental concepts of OO, like classes, inheritance, instances, class and instance variables, class and instance methods etc. Essentially a chapter similar to my video tutorials but going a bit deepers with more detailed example still keeping it simple , clear and understandable even for non coders.
If you write something I will review it and tell you if it is ok for the book. If this is more or less ok, I'm ready to do a pass. so I can help if what you write is ok. Now I do not know your writing skills so I do not want to tell you that this is ok without even getting a feel about what you can produce.
I want to know whether such chapter would be included because I dont like to waste my time or the precious time of the student that has taken the task on her shoulders.
"IMHO this is the exception to that obvious rule. OOP in particular is misunderstood by almost everyone. If we as Smalltalkers describe it from a forensic CS perspective that sounds to me like C++, I believe it is better that we say nothing on the subject."
Personally I dont care if people misunderstand OOP , I only care about getting my code to work the way I want it. So far I had no problem doing that even though I code using very simple concept some of them may come even back when I was coding in C++. I also dont share the sense of wonder that some of you may share about how Smalltalk is doing OO, coming from python does not seem such a big deal for me.
For example message passing suppose to be this super powerful feature , that diffirentiate from method calls in the essence that the user does not need to know the internals of the class. But I have not seen a class that take advantage of this feature inside pharo.
sorry but I do not get the last paragraph. To me method calls are just a different way to call message passing and I prefer message passing because it conveys that we do not directly refer to the method but that the method is dynamically selected.
In every single case if I had exchanged the message passing with method calls I would not have even noticed the difference.
How could you? in Smalltalk the only to implement what you call method calls is to access directly the method and use executeXXX on it.
In every case I have studied each message corresponds to a method with exactly the same name.
There are plenty of methods defined with the same name in the system so I do not get your point.
I am sure maybe one day will come handly , but I dont see why one needs to explain a feature that rarely someone will use understand how to code in a specific environment.
??? Stef