[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: parasti
Subject: [Help-smalltalk] Re: [RFC] Smalltalk scripting syntax
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:54:35 +0200
User-agent: Icedove (X11/20061220)

Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Sorry, but you've got me confused.  What you've said above is the exact
>> opposite of what I understand by "scripting".  Scripting is an
>> interpreted dynamic on-the-fly kind of thing.
> Scripting is also about lots of libraries that are easy to use and easy
> to write.  Which means, having good tools for documentation, cross
> referencing, and so on.  Such tools need to understand the structure
> the program, they cannot just rely on self-discipline of the library
> writers.

Your argument does not invalidate my concern or rather it does not
justify taking away something that users appreciate for something that
tool writers like better.

Smalltalk provides sufficient documentation features that can easily be
extended;  if you choose not to use them you should not expect your code
to make much sense.  I believe that's what we fundamentally disagree on.
   A library writer isn't a library writer if he doesn't document and
doesn't write self-documenting code, whatever the language.  Put too
much emphasis (though I haven't heard of languages being modified for
reasons like this one) on tools and you'll have a language that will be
barely usable *without* them.

Slightly off-topic stuff follows.

I am here because I liked what I saw when I started playing around with
Smalltalk.  GNU Smalltalk is the only variant I've ever used and I
haven't considered using others because most of them seemed to be huge
custom graphical environments and weren't free software.  I looked at
GNU Smalltalk and thought "hey, this is something I'd want to use and
spend my time on improving".  I already mentioned (in the other comment)
things that I see as needing attention, which is documentation
(including the web site) and package management, and I'm willing to help
as much as I can because I see potential (for the lack of a better word)
in this language and in this variant of the language in particular.  The
language that it's being turned into is not that language.

(By the way, I can't be the guy who just hates everything new because
two months ago I literally didn't know what Smalltalk looks like.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]