Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk, comp.object
From: Stefan Schmiedl <s...@xss.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:01:19 +0100
Local: Sat, Dec 22 2007 6:01 am
Subject: Re: FINALLY: Another language adopts Smalltalk's keyword -syntax
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:47:42 -0500
Panu <p...@nospam.com> wrote:True. Probably ;>
> Stefan Schmiedl wrote:
> > And "readable" is what you have learned to read.
> True. But most people on this list learned to
> So this "everything is relative" argument has aReally? IMO, what matters is how well the language
> misleading flaw. Of course 'easy' means different
> things to different people. What really matters
> is what is easy for most people.
maps to the solution you come up for your problems.
If you're having a nice object based representation
of a given task, a language without objects won't
cut it. If you're dealing with a well-defined mathematical
problem, you'll probably not mind being able to define
functions with a fixed number of arguments only.
Parsing input with regular expressions is in many cases
> Now, if you invest your time in learning to readBoth have simple syntax, for me there's no difference.
> Lisp (which I've done), the question still remains,
> does it make Lisp more readable to you, than Smalltalk,
> after a similar investment in time to learn it.
What I'm (sometimes) missing in Smalltalk is multiple inheritance,
but I have yet to look at the what and how of Traits.
What I'm missing in Lisp is a little bit of cleaning up
of the historically grown special cases (eg. different
accessor function names vs. different implementations
of the same message).
Dylan was, again IMHO, a step in the right direction, *before*
> -Panu Viljamaa
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.