Michael Rueger wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Keith Hodges <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> I am not saying that the smalltalk conventions are bad, what I am saying >> is that the flexibility to break the conventions is useful in OTHER >> CONTEXTS, and in many ways makes it possible to have other use cases in >> the first place. >> > > Then break them in the other contexts, but not for the whole system. > > If you allow abuse of the language, people will do it. > But what is the Language?
Smalltalk is objects and message sends thats all (at least thats the theory). Whenever this simplicity is compromised then there are problems down the road (e.g. inlining ifTrue:ifFalse: limits the ability to change its behavior and people find a need to diable this inlining) No conventions need to be hard wired. Its the same debate as static vs dynamic typing all over again. Keith _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
