|
|
|
|
|
by fjl
6459 days ago
|
|
smalltalk is one of the most influential languages i have ever used. after reading about it in a crappy computer magazine, downloading squeak and learning how to build things
i virtually spent the rest of the night wondering, laughing
about the simplistic beauty of its clean design.
its extensibility and the duck typing principle, as well as object orientation in general, are key concepts of many dynamic languages. apart from seaside, which is nice anyway, even rather 'primitive' things like graphical user interfaces were
invented in smalltalk. the 'extraordinary productivity', as bowkett is putting it, may probably be the reason for that. so if smalltalk is cool again by now, why bother?
looks like its comeback will bear resemblance to
the lisp comeback in about 1999. |
|
In hindsight I'm not sure that its design as a fully self-contained / relatively isolated system is a good idea, but the core semantics of the language make a lot of sense. OO is a better paradigm for some problems than others, but Smalltalk has a far more sensible vision of OO than those grafted onto C's type system, and I would recommend people play with it over reading endless rehashing of _Design Patterns_. (Smalltalk is to OO as Haskell is to FP.)
Also:
> The questioner also adds:
> "For the record: I'm a Ruby guy with little to no experience in Smalltalk, but I'm starting to wonder why."
> The answer: because you look to anonymous crowds on social networking sites for approval when you should just follow your curiousity and see where it leads.
Burn.