[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-smalltalk] Smalltalk Help

From: Mike Anderson
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] Smalltalk Help
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 22:40:23 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (X11/20050711)

kraehe wrote:
> Moin Mike Anderson,
>>address@hidden wrote:
>>>Is smalltalk primarily a functional language, an imperative language, or a 
>>>logic-programming language? 
>>You can eliminate two of the options quite easily.
>   /me is cheating by using google ... 
>   " Smalltalk is a tidier functional language than Scheme "

>   and even more interesting ....
>   google: smalltalk imperative language
>   and its of course suited for logic programming
>   SOUL

>   google can eliminate all 3 options, i think.

I think you'd need a degree of understanding to get an answers out of
the first two links (although there is certainly value in reading the
whole of the thread in the first one). As for the third one:

"SOUL is an interpreter for a Prolog dialect that runs on top of a
Smalltalk implementation"

Hey, keshec92, are you still reading, anyway?

>   /me has also an evangelical streak sometimes.
>   Smalltalk is Smalltalk ... other languages who came later just took
>   a feature out of context and hyped it. Do you agree, that most modern
>   languages become more and more similar to Smalltalk every year ? Do
>   you agree that now is the time, where everybody can afford a Smalltalk
>   machine, unlike in the late 60s, where mainframes had a maximum of
>   16MB core and thousands of users running CICS in logical partitions.

I dunno. There's certainly a lot of languages that think they are
borrowing from Smalltalk lately, but I find that they don't really grok
Smalltalk (if they did, they wouldn't try to bolt ALGOL-style syntax
onto it).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]