[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Sma
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax) |
Date: |
Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:26:49 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Macintosh/20070221) |
>>> Put too much emphasis on tools and you'll have a language that will
>>> be barely usable *without* them.
>> This is a bold statement, and I want to understand more of it.
>> How can you be sure? Do you consider Ruby or Python barely usable
>> without tools?
>
> Heh. It's a bold statement, I agree. No, I do not consider Python to
> be useless without tools.
Ok, so this gives me some confidence that you didn't mean the
proposed Smalltalk extension to be useless without tools.
Ironically, I consider current Smalltalks to be barely usable
without tools (browser), given the problems with the bang
syntax. AFAIU, you consider the bang syntax amendable instead;
this may be the main disagreement, right?
> Which is why I don't really
> need anything else than a text editor and Python. Hell, I don't even
> need the text editor.
I can tell you it's the same with Smalltalk -- both current and
proposed syntax. But the productivity will improve a lot, I think.
Besides, it is just syntactic sugar, you can steer away from it
or you can try it.
>>> The language that it's being turned into is not that language.
>> This is also a bold statement. Please expand on it, I'm genuinely
>> interested (they even deserved a subject change!).
>
> It's entirely my own opinion and it's based on one simple fact: I
> wouldn't use it. I find that the changes you're proposing address some
> of the things that I like most about Smalltalk (extreme simplicity, one
> paradigm)
Here is where I don't understand your point. The syntax
doesn't add paradigms. It only touches the most basic constructs
of Smalltalk, which are the ones that are used to structure a
program -- classes, methods, namespaces. These changes surely don't
add as much complexity as there is in Python's syntax (iterators, for
example: if these enter the GNU Smalltalk class library, it will not
grow new keywords like "yield"; likewise for splicing).
In fact, the class/class-instance variable example shows how the
new syntax emphasizes the duality between instance variables/methods
and class-instance variables/class methods, while the current bang
syntax only expresses this for the methods, and suggests a wrong
correspondence between instance and class variables.
If a syntax helps improving one's language usage, I find that a
good point in favor of it.
As far as scripting, your suggestions will not be implemented immediately
due to lack of time, but they are a prerequisite for the next release.
Please, tell me which points you disagree on.
Paolo
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, (continued)
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Stewart Stremler, 2007/03/14
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Mike Anderson, 2007/03/13
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, parasti, 2007/03/13
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Stephen Compall, 2007/03/13
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/14
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, parasti, 2007/03/14
- [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/15
- [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, parasti, 2007/03/16
- [Help-smalltalk] Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax), Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/16
- [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax), parasti, 2007/03/17
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax),
Paolo Bonzini <=
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax), parasti, 2007/03/18
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax), Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/19
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Directions for GNU Smalltalk (was Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax), parasti, 2007/03/19
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Mike Anderson, 2007/03/14
- [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/15
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Mike Anderson, 2007/03/15
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/15
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Mike Anderson, 2007/03/12
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, Paolo Bonzini, 2007/03/13
- Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax, David Given, 2007/03/13