Re: [Help-smalltalk] [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax

[parasti]

Mike Anderson wrote:
> I may have given the wrong impression. The above is my opinion of the
> new syntax, and the reason why I think it's OK. It's not the official
> line, which is more "Let's make Smalltalk accessible", although that is
> perhaps a bit over-simplified. I think there is a consensus that the
> chunk format is unsatisfactory.

I agree that it's an oversimplification, in fact, I intended it that
way.  I have read a couple of mails on this list that indicate that the
motivation for some of the changes is to make GNU Smalltalk more
attractive or, in other words, familiar.  To balance the
oversimplification a bit, let me exaggerate by saying that for me it's
like you've just found the best thing you've ever seen and then it turns
out it's actually going to be the same old thing you've seen before so
many times.  I find it frustrating.  (And that "best thing" is not
Smalltalk in general as a language+environment, it's exactly the kind of
Smalltalk that GNU Smalltalk is.)

> Only the <category> is new, you know. If you are saying that you find
> Smalltalk syntax ugly in general, I don't agree.

That's not what I'm saying at all.  I wouldn't be here complaining
otherwise, would I?

Jānis