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


Avi Bryant wrote:
> ...
> "I can easily edit a ruby program in a text editor and run it from the
> command line."
> Never mind that you *could* trivially set up, say, a Squeak image so that
> you could edit source in a file and run it from the shell - that would be
> completely missing the point, and you might as well be using Ruby.  

Okay, fair enough. But it seems to me (as just a guess) that there must 
be something about Smalltalk that dissuades people from just using it as 
if it were Ruby. After all, if it were as good as Ruby at scripting and 
as good at Smalltalk at introspection one would expect it to be more 
popular than Ruby (or Python, or ...). One would also expect Fowler to 
be smart enough to realize that he could stay in the language he loves 
and yet use the text-based environment he is used to. Is there something 
in Smalltalk's model that discourages him from using it as a text-based 
scripting language?

  Paul Prescod