[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax
From: |
Mike Anderson |
Subject: |
Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:56:21 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061025) |
Topher Cyll wrote:
>> It seems to me that we have never really addressed the question of how
>> the language is used to write actual scripts. 'Scripting' is not a
>> precisely defined activity, of course, but it seems to me that scripting
>> often does not require defining new classes.
>>
>> For example, it's perfectly possible to define classes in Perl, but for
>> most scripts I never do.
>
> I would just caution, this may be a symptom of Perl's broken class
> system. I tend not to define classes when I script in Perl either,
> but when I'm scripting with Ruby (even simple things) it's not
> uncommon for me to define my own classes.
Perl's class system is no more broken than C's :)
What makes you choose Perl for some scripts and Ruby for others, if you
don't mind me asking?
> Anyways, good questions you raised!
> Toph
Thank you!
Mike
Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Paul D. Fernhout, 2007/03/09
Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Mike Anderson, 2007/03/10