Hi, > The way I look at it, Python ints and floats "out of the box" have a more > limited repertoire than in Smalltalk apparently.
Limited for a reason, see below. > Once we import math, then we get these external functions, which don't > actually reach into the guts of the number type for an answer. The > native types are knowledgeable, but not omniscient (likewise with > user-defined). > Right, so there is also a virtue in Pythons way of number-objects _not_ knowing about sin(): smalltalk's smart numbers only work, because everything (every method/function) is contained in one image; mathematical functions are methods defined somewhere in the Number class hierarchy of the smalltalk system. And you always have everything around, if you use it or not. Contrast this with Python, where you start with a limited set of builtin functions and object types and import other stuff only when needed. You save your work with little files (modules) and use rather less ressources than a full smalltalk image. Much more lightweight approach. Certainly one of the most important reasons I prefer Python, even when I admire the uniformity of smalltalk objects: the granularity of module files and a small efficient runtime environment running fast enough everywhere. Christian _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
