[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Starting with smalltalk

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Starting with smalltalk
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:18:19 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20060530)

This is a problem, but with the growing number of architectures and
operating systems, it is just as hard for any other language
It's a bit different, and actually worse. It's like you had ten different forks of Python, and somebody writes for one and somebody for the others.
I have not found anything about packaging yet, however this is the
kind of thing that will keep a language from ever getting out (even
out of a computer ;-) ).
I don't think the packaging system is *too* inflexible. It's underdeveloped, true, and feature requests will only help.
>> - A way of editing smalltalk files without the use of a commercial IDE

This sounds as if you're thinking about commercial Smalltalks, like
Visual Works. Actually, most other Smalltalks don't use files - you
develop within the IDE, and code at the method level. Where the source
code is outside of the image, it is found in a repository like Envy or
Store, ie. a database.
I'm sorry, but if Smalltalk can't even get out of my computer, I might
just not bother to learn it at all. This does explain why I can't find
any real-life implementations on the internet (like a simple hello,
ls, find, sort or anything like that with install scripts,
documentations and comments).
Mike is speaking about commercial Smalltalks. GNU Smalltalk is by design different. You can write your code in files, with SciTE or Emacs. The next version, when it comes out, will almost surely have a more compact and less arcane syntax for defining classes, and so on.
Then I guess there arn't any standard commandline argument parsing
libraries in the stdlib either, right?
If you want, I can write one in half an hour. :-P Would this syntax satisfy you (I'm getting the command line options from autoconf)?

arguments: '-B|--prepend-include: -I|--include: -t|--trace: -p|--preselect= -F|--freeze --help --version -v'
   do: [ :arg :option | (arg->option) printNl ].

The output could be something like


if you invoked your script like

   gst -f --trace=AC_DEFUN -v -B/usr/local/share
PS If all this is really like I now think it is, I can imagine why
this language never took off!
Maybe that's because the language was born 20 years before Python. The problem is not the inflexibility of the language, is that nobody implemented the features that people love in other languages (due to lack of time, lack of funding, or sometimes even human stupidity).


reply via email to

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