2009/1/20 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@doesnotunderstand.org>:
2009/1/20 Damien Pollet <damien.pollet@gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
My first reaction is "why is it not Smalltalk?" Not the name, but the language itself. Is there something I missed/should read to understand it?
+1 , i don't understand too, what makes 'scripting' in smalltalk too different than writing in smalltalk :)
Smalltalk only has syntax for method bodies, it lacks a (practical) one for declaring packages/classes/categories/method declarations in a single block of text.
Ok, you add some convenience methods in order to declare packages/classes/ ... more easily, but the syntax is still the same ?
what is surprising in this, that i first found smalltalk when was looking for a simple yet powerful dynamic language to use for scripting. And now, i hear that its not suited well for scripting..
-- Serge Stinckwich IRD - UR 079 Geodes, MSI Team, Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.