Ah yes, the language that also couldn't agree on a standard. So your
code is always tied to one specific vendor.
And because it couldn't agree on a standard type-system, you could
roll your own by extending the meta-object protocol. which just meant
that you couldn't mix and match libraries from multiple sources.
The language that also couldn't get decent method call speeds because
too much flexibility in method dispatch.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 17:22, Fritz Meissner<fritz.meissner@gmai...> wrote:
> I'm actually curious about Smalltalk... been working on a project
> where a Java system integrates with a Smalltalk app that's been live
> for 16 years (!). The smalltalk developer I'm working with seems
> slightly surprised at the sudden popularity of dynamic languages when
> in his opinion Smalltalk was doing it right all along. The language
> seems to have a fair amount of traction in the business community and
> from what I've seen they have great development tools. Perhaps we
> should be looking backwards rather than forwards for the next business
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Johan Steyn<johan.steyn@gmai...> wrote:
>>> Fritz Meissner wrote:
>>> > In that case I'd be fascinated to hear what isn't a terrible language ?
>> I wouldn't say Java is terrible. It avoids many errors that are common in
>> C/C++ (where I started), but introduced other pitfalls - of which Heinz
>> mentioned some.
>> I wouldn't ever consider using .Net, and in my free time I (used to) dabble
>> in a bit of Python, which to my senses is just plain no-nonsense
>> straightforward done right. I have no interest in Perl anymore, and I
>> haven't looked at Ruby, which I think gained popularity on the back of Rails
>> rather than the language itself in it's own right.
>> IMO, if you know some C for low-level, fast native apps, Java for enterprise
>> apps, and Python for scripting - with obviously some intersection among
>> them, then you are pretty much sorted to tackle any programming task without
>> needing to know any other language.
>> That said, I haven't looked at Lisp since 1992, but I don't see a need for
>> it other than stretching my mind - which is a good thing in it's own right