Em 06/12/2010 17:35, Sean P. DeNigris < [email protected] > escreveu:
> csrabak wrote: > > e persons needed about the same than the Java colleagues (which > > worked a complimentary part of the project) to become proficient > > and productive in Smalltalk. by the time I was "proficient and > > productive in Smalltalk," I had > > ered the equivalent of an OS! From threading, to windows, the main > > t loop - all things that were magically behind the scenes in C, > > C++, and > > Ruby to an extent (which at the outer GUI level was down in the > > same ). Whereas, it really did take only one reading to grok the > > syntax. > > Well, comparing C, even C++ which normally hasn't automatic garbage collection, is somewhat stretching the argument... but; even with those "idiosyncrasies" as soon the size of the application grows up, these perks of Smalltalk quickly become less noticeable, while on the other hand the fact Smalltalk being dynamic dispatched takes its toll in the needing of programmers attention to avoid the attribution of wrong objects to instance variables as there is no type checking... > csrabak wrote: > > Smalltalkers take sometimes at face value certain things that > > clash > > in al world: the famous simplicity of the syntax (which Stef's > > famous stcard example) of Smalltalk is mpletely flared by the > > overwhelming complexity of the class libraries. > > > fact that mastering anything takes time - is orthogonal to the book > e. The majority of books I came across in C++ (and needed copies of > in y office I worked, to the point where I got a $50 a month Safari > books cription) were related to the language, not the libraries - > full of , gotchas, and other advice to not trip over the > complexities of the uage itself - before even considering the first > library! Sean, once you really get to metal subtleties and other nuances on the language and syntax appear to bug your team. Have you ever heard of John McSweeney's "Smalltalk ‘Traps’" piece¹? > ease of use of a library is a function of the design skill of the > ary developers. But I bet you it was much easier to *write* that ary > than it would have been in a static language in a non-live ronment > ;-) While the libraries are for 'endogenous' use, yes, as soon we need to have functionality to put our apps in the same stand as the other technologies are right now, the issues start to become all the same... And them the advantages of Smalltalk as platform vanishes against ones more coupled to present technology. Have you tried to automate an Office application with any flavor of Smalltalk lately? Did you see the thread "Is there a good example of an app using SqueakDBX to output data?" All the simplicity of Smalltalk is lost as soon you need to fit the square peg in the round hole... :-| my 0.019999... -- Cesar Rabak [1] http://www.jmcsweeney.co.uk/computing/m206/traps.doc
