On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Lukas Renggli
<renggli@gmail.com> wrote:
> not right to me. I wanted to express the feeling that, for me, the one
> of the best things about Smalltalk is its readability in difference to
> C, which is very fast. The �new compiler optimize� both, anyway.
- The "New Compiler" does not yet work.
- The optimized #and:and:and: code never decompiled correctly.
- The exact semantics of #and:and:and: is not clear without knowing
how it is implemented.
- There are subtle semantic differences between "a and: [ b ] and: [ c
] and: [ d ]" and "a and: [ b and: [ c and: [ d ] ] ]" if the
conditions have side-effects.
- The #and:and:and: constructs are very confusing to newbies, I have
seen that numerous times.
- The use of #and:and:and: doesn't shorten code.
- #and:and:and: is not necessary from a language point of view.
- And most important for me: #and:and:and: is incompatible with the
rest of the world.
Lukas
--
Lukas Renggli
www.lukas-renggli.ch