[nine_k]

Curiously, Smalltalk also lacks the idea of a function. Everything is an object; instead of a function, you have a code block which is an object.

But, unlike Java, Smalltalk is (utterly) dynamic, and you don't have to declare a class for your code block. In Java, you had to dance that dance, until lambdas were introduced to let the compiler do that for you.

[igouy]

> > > Everything is an object…

"Every object in Smalltalk, even a lowly integer, has a set of messages, a protocol, that defines the explicit communication to which that object can respond. Internally, objects may have local storage and access to other shared information which comprise the implicit context of all communication."

p290 Byte Magazine 1981

http://worrydream.com/refs/Ingalls%20-%20Design%20Principles...

> > > … instead of a function…

Instead of a function, a message.

Let's take that literally —

  perform: aSymbol with: anObject
  
    Answer the result of sending a binary message
    to the receiver with selector aSymbol and argument
    anObject. Report an error if the number of arguments
    expected by the selector is not one.

(For more of those methods, see p425

https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutori... )

Last-time I remember using those #perform methods, it was for testing — walking the code sending arbitrary messages and and arguments.

[igouy]

"III. Anonymous Function = Block?" slides 17 & 18

"Smalltalk blocks and closures origin and evolution" Juan Escalada

https://smalltalks2017.fast.org.ar/talks

[pjmlp]

Until lambdas came to be, the workaround was to use anonymous classes, very few people would do a separate class.

And no lambdas are not implemented that way, rather they take advantage of invokedynamic.