> On 31 Aug 2015, at 12:28, Mark Bratcher <mdbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Holger
Hi,
> Thanks again for being so responsive.
>
> After doing some admittedly light research on the `new` method versus
> `initialize`, it looks like Pharo (and probably, therefore, Squeak) is the
> only variant of Smalltalk that automatically calls an instance initializer
> (`initialize`) on `new`. If GNU Smalltalk is following this to be easier to
> port from Pharo, that raises a philosophical question for GNU Smalltalk: is
> intended for it to align as much as possible with the Pharo implementation
> (and then perhaps, ultimately, become a "Pharo variant"), or to attempt to
> remain more "pure" (whatever that might mean :)) relative to Smalltalk-80? I
> noticed in various texts discussion Smalltalk class instance creation,
> specifically show a pattern something like:
it is a pragmatic decision. The GNU Smalltalk community is not very large and
there are not many projects that get created for GNU Smalltalk (e.g. Iliad was a
notable exception). With gst-convert we have a tool to convert from other
dialects
but in recent times I think I/we only ported from Pharo.
I don’t think there is intention to be “Pharo compatible”. E.g. String/Symbol
will
not be considered equal. There is no plans to introduce a ProtoObject and maybe
not even the “MetaLink”.. at least not to kernel/
At the same time I started to use the >>#new/#initialize pattern as well so it
fellt
like a natural progress.
kind regards
holger
_______________________________________________
help-smalltalk mailing list
help-smalltalk@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-smalltalk
