2009/1/20 Serge Stinckwich <[email protected]>: > > > 2009/1/20 Damien Pollet <[email protected]> >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My first reaction is "why is it not Smalltalk?" Not the name, but the >> >> language itself. Is there something I missed/should read to understand >> >> it? >> > >> > +1 , i don't understand too, what makes 'scripting' in smalltalk too >> > different than writing in smalltalk :) >> >> Smalltalk only has syntax for method bodies, it lacks a (practical) >> one for declaring packages/classes/categories/method declarations in a >> single block of text. > > Ok, you add some convenience methods in order to declare packages/classes/ > ... more easily, but the syntax is still the same ? >
what is surprising in this, that i first found smalltalk when was looking for a simple yet powerful dynamic language to use for scripting. And now, i hear that its not suited well for scripting.. > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > IRD - UR 079 Geodes, MSI Team, Hanoi, Vietnam > Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] > http://doesnotunderstand.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
