For some article I am currently writing, I would like to know the genesis
of the name ``Flavors'', and why precisely ``vanilla'' has been chosen as
the name of the more general class ?
Sorry if the point has been yet discussed in the News, but I've missed it
anyway.
Thanx in advance.
--
Ge'rald MASINI CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
uucp: ······@crin.crin.fr
post: CRIN B.P. 239 54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex FRANCE
phone: +33 83.91.21.45
In article <···@crin.crin.fr> ······@crin.crin.fr (Gerald MASINI) writes:
>For some article I am currently writing, I would like to know the genesis
>of the name ``Flavors'', and why precisely ``vanilla'' has been chosen as
>the name of the more general class ?
>Ge'rald MASINI CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
There are certainly many people more qualified than I to address this
issue, but I'll tell you what I know.
There was this Ice Cream shop in Cambridge called Steve's. (It's now
a big ice cream company, but Steve doesn't work there anymore. I think
he opened a place across the street) Anyway, when you went to Steve's
you got some VANILLA ice cream and then added MIXINS (like chocolate
flavoring or fruit flavoring or whatever) to make the FLAVOR that you
really wanted.
To the best of my knowledge, this is true.
--
+
| Duke Robillard
| AT&T Bell Labs ·········@ihnp4.UUCP
| Murray Hill, NJ {any biggy}!ihnp4!m10ux!rgr
In article <···@m10ux.UUCP> ···@m10ux.UUCP (Duke Robillard) writes:
>There was this Ice Cream shop in Cambridge called Steve's. (It's now
>a big ice cream company, but Steve doesn't work there anymore. I think
>he opened a place across the street) Anyway, when you went to Steve's
>you got some VANILLA ice cream and then added MIXINS (like chocolate
>flavoring or fruit flavoring or whatever) to make the FLAVOR that you
>really wanted.
The Gosling Emacs manual remarks that search expressions come in two
flavours: vanilla and regular.
Rather more seriously, flavours and similar systems (such as Scoops)
are a reaction against the strict class-inheritance philosophy which
traces its origins back to Simula. Whereas Simula and Smalltalk have
a fairly strict tree-structure for inheritance (barring the peculiar
things involved with metaclasses), a flavour-based system is more like
a dag: it's much easier to have classes which are hybrids of two others
(via mixins). While this enrages advocates of strict typing, it is very
much more usable for real-world situations.
Just as there is no "canonical" flavour called chocolate amaretto bubble
gum (yuck!), but you can blend your own, so too in a flavour system
you can construct the object classes you want, by blending your own.
Vincent Manis | ·····@cs.ubc.ca
The Invisible City of Kitezh | ·····@cs.ubc.cdn
Department of Computer Science | ·····@ubc.csnet
University of British Columbia | {ihnp4!alberta,uw-beaver,uunet}!
| ubc-cs!manis
<<NOTE NEW ADDRESS>>
Q: what is the most popular ice cream flavour that almost everyone
likes?
A: vanilla.
Its un-imaginative sweet plain boring and is the default choice when
your not sure of anything else in the ice cream parlor. Vanilla is
vanilla anywhere. I guess chocolate varys from parlor to parlor in
flavour and richness.
--
······@watmsg.waterloo.edu |"I AM THE DREAD PIRATE ROBERTS AND
__ _ | THERE WILL BE NO SURVIVORS"
/ _ _ _ |/ _ _ | _ _ |/ | - The Princess Bride
\__| `<_\<_ |\|= | ` \_/<_\<_ |\ | disclaimer...
There is an old document on most major ARPANET hosts (as well as on
OSU-20.IRCC.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU) which defines such jargon. On our
system you can find it in DOC:JARGON.DOC and info-ized for Emacs in
INFO:JARGON.INFO. Here is part of the preface from that file; much of
the detail is probably out of date (since 14-Nov-82!) Does anyone
know how to bring it up-to-date?
> This file is maintained at three locations. It is AIWORD.RF[UP,DOC]
> at SAIL, and GLS;JARGON > at MIT-MC and at MIT-AI. ...
>
> If you'd rather not mung the file yourself, send your definitions to
> DON @ SAIL, GLS @ MIT-AI, and/or MRC @ SAIL.
>
> The last edit (of this line, anyway) was by Don Woods, 82-11-14.
At any rate, here are the definitions most relevant to this question:
FLAVOR n. 1. Variety, type, kind. "DDT commands come in two flavors."
See VANILLA. 2. The attribute of causing something to be
FLAVORFUL. "This convention yields additional flavor by allowing
one to..." 3. On the LispMachine, an object-oriented programming
system ("flavors"); each class of object is a flavor.
FLAVORFUL adj. Aesthetically pleasing. See RANDOM and LOSING for
antonyms. See also the entry for TASTE.
TASTE n. (primarily MIT-DMS) The quality in programs which tends to be
inversely proportional to the number of features, hacks, and kluges
programmed into it. Also, TASTY, TASTEFUL, TASTEFULNESS. "This
feature comes in N tasty flavors." Although TASTEFUL and FLAVORFUL
are essentially synonyms, TASTE and FLAVOR are not.
VANILLA adj. Ordinary flavor, standard. See FLAVOR. When used of
food, very often does not mean that the food is flavored with
vanilla extract! For example, "vanilla-flavored wonton soup" (or
simply "vanilla wonton soup") means ordinary wonton soup, as
opposed to hot and sour wonton soup.
-=-
Lum Johnson ···@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu ···@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
"You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
In article <·····@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> ···@brachiosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) writes:
>There is an old document on most major ARPANET hosts (as well as on
>OSU-20.IRCC.CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU) which defines such jargon. On our
>system you can find it in DOC:JARGON.DOC and info-ized for Emacs in
>INFO:JARGON.INFO. Here is part of the preface from that file; much of
>the detail is probably out of date (since 14-Nov-82!) Does anyone
>know how to bring it up-to-date?
This document has been made into a little paperback book called "The
Hacker's Dictionary", by Guy Steele, et al, and was published a couple of
years ago, I think. It can be found in many bookstores.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian: Sure you won't change your mind?
Spock: Is there something wrong with the one I have?
Aaron Endelman / ········@sun.com /
Symbolic Programming Group
Software Products Division
Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <···@crin.crin.fr> ······@crin.crin.fr (Gerald MASINI) writes:
>For some article I am currently writing, I would like to know the genesis
>of the name ``Flavors'', and why precisely ``vanilla'' has been chosen as
>the name of the more general class ?
>Sorry if the point has been yet discussed in the News, but I've missed it
>anyway.
>Thanx in advance.
>--
>Ge'rald MASINI CRIN (Centre de Recherche en Informatique de Nancy)
>uucp: ······@crin.crin.fr
>post: CRIN B.P. 239 54506 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy Cedex FRANCE
>phone: +33 83.91.21.45
Sorry about posting this, but our mailer can't reach you ...
It is an interesting bit of trivia, though ...
There is an ice cream parlor in Cambridge called Steve's Ice Cream where it
is possible to "build" your own FLAVOR by using MIXINS. Vanilla is usually
the starting point. MIXINS constist of crushed Oreos, M&M's, etc.
Thus the parallel to Object hierarchies without a strict inheritance
hierarchy.
That's the myth I've heard.
--
Bill Luciw / Technology Leader ATTnet: (716) 477-5384
Knowledge-Based Systems Group UUCP: ...rutgers!rochester!kodak!luciw
Eastman Kodak Company ARPA: ·····@cs.rochester.edu
"Don't take life seriously, you'll never get out of it alive!" -- Bugs Bunny
In article <···@crin.crin.fr> ······@crin.crin.fr (Gerald MASINI) writes:
>For some article I am currently writing, I would like to know the genesis
>of the name ``Flavors'', and why precisely ``vanilla'' has been chosen as
>the name of the more general class ?
Think of ice cream. Vanilla is an "ordinary flavor". This use of
"vanilla" is fairly general, and not confined to ice cream and object
systems. One might say, for example, "vanilla Common Lisp code" to
describe some code that didn't contain anything tricky or particularly
interesting. So "vanilla" just means "ordinary".
The ice cream image is useful, though, because it also might serve to
explain "mixins" (as in "mixin flavors"). In Massachusetts (and perhaps
other parts of the US), there are places that offer to mix various things
into ice cream. This is not the same as, say, chocolate chip ice cream
where something is already mixed in -- you get to pick the ice cream flavor
and the "mixin" independently.
I don't know that this is in fact the correct explanation for the use
of "mixin" in flavors, but it seems a likely one.
Jeff Dalton, JANET: ········@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: ·················@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!J.Dalton
In article <···@aiva.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>This use of
>"vanilla" is fairly general, and not confined to ice cream and object
>systems. One might say, for example, "vanilla Common Lisp code" to
>describe some code that didn't contain anything tricky or particularly
>interesting. So "vanilla" just means "ordinary".
This use of the word can cause confusion. I was maintaining some code once
(I think it was vi) which included the comment "give the user a vanilla
terminal". I didn't understand it, especially as I was into vanilla flavoured
cakes at the time (I mean really vanilla flavoured, not plain).
Moral: in technical writing, and comments, say what you mean in plain English
(not vanilla English ...).
By the LISPers use of the word, we would have vanilla flavour crisps.
What a concept.
--
"The answer is simple, they could do it with ease;
stop attacking the patients, and attack the disease." -- Tom Robinson.