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

Re: A question

Gregory T. Sullivan <gregs@ai.mit.edu> wrote in message
uvqhfgk5z3x.fsf@ernie.ai.mit.edu">news:uvqhfgk5z3x.fsf@ernie.ai.mit.edu...
> >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen J Guthrie <steve.guthrie@mantissa.com> writes:
>
>  Stephen> I recently began programming in Squeak (Smalltalk).  Give me a
reason to
>  Stephen> come back to Dylan.
>
> Plays well with others.

As does Smalltalk.

> The FO implementation of Dylan in particular takes great pains to
> produce well-behaved "native" app.s.  Both GD and FO Dylan have C
> FFI's.  FO Dylan also has mature interoperability features for Corba
> and OLE/COM/ActiveX.

Ditto, Smalltalk.

> Squeak, and Smalltalk in general, is great, but, as far as I could
> tell when I last looked at it, tends to assume a mostly closed,
> Smalltalk-centric world.

While this may be true to a limited extent with Squeak, it is definitely
*not* true with the Smalltalk world in general. All of the major commercial
Smalltalk dialects go to great lengths to make it easy to interoperate with
the rest of the world via just about any mechanism you would hope for.
C-language interfaces? Got it. DLL interfaces? Got it.
Corba/COM/OLE/ActiveX? Got it.

If you want to come up with reasons why one should switch from Dylan to
Smalltalk, you are going to have to try a bit harder than that.

-Eric
Follow-Ups: References: