- virtual machine
- garbage collector
- reflection (introspection)
- dynamic object system (object can change the class, metaclasses)
- Integrated Development Environment
- for 30 years computers were too slow for virtual machines.
- the first smalltalk systems was too expensive for normal folk.
- smalltalk was too closed (not open) to another systems or languages.
- has no types. Some managers believe that typed languages can save them from ignorance.
- it is too mature for making big money with consulting, i.e., it is on the trailing curve of the hype bandwagon.
- jcw adds another - more technical - reason: deployment can be tricky...
] is a little walkthough on how a developer decided between C++ and Smalltalk.XOTcl is an object-oriented extension for Tcl that has some characteristics from Smalltalk. It is also dynamic and has metaclasses and also have the same feeling. XOTclIDE provide Smalltalk-like IDE (Squeak, Version Control as in Envy)DKF: And TclOO borrows many concepts from XOTcl, so there's definite continuity from Smalltalk in there. (Not everything though; incr Tcl was an influence too, and that's got C++ genes.)Talking of syntax, here's a snippet from [4] - double-quoted strings are just comments:
7 "a number"
$z "a character"
'colourless ideas sleep furiously' "a string"
#(#tom #dick #harry) "an array of 3 components"
#(# one 'should shower at least' 3 'times a week')# before a string turns it into a symbol (like quote in LISP); #(...) denotes what we'd call a list. RS can't help finding Tcl simpler, and better-looking...Lars H: Does the # work like / in Postscript? In that language, /tom is just a name whereas tom is a command. Anyhow I agree Tcl looks better. - RS: Yes, #tom is the symbol tom, 'tom' is a string constant, and tom either variable or method/keyword.Let see some sample program to show all main Smalltalk syntax and look and feel.
| myVar myVar2 | " Variable Definition"
myVar := SampleClass new. "Create Instance of Class Sample Class.
new is simple method call on object SampleClass not special operator
Everything is object"
myVar setSample: 1. "call method setSample: with one parameter"
myVar setSample: 2 with: 3. "call method setSample:with: with two parameters"
"method chaning java myVar.getAnotherObjekt().callThisObjectWith(23)"
myVar getAnotherObjekt callThisObjectWith: 23.
"Now Blocks"
myVar isRead ifTrue: [Transcpript show: 'I am Ready'] ifFalse: [Transcript show: 'Not Ready']
"Or somethig like C operator ? : "
myVar := myVar isRead ifTrue: [1] ifFalse: [2].
"Collection"
myVar := Array new.
"Write Collection on stdout"
myVar do: [:each | Transcript show: each printString].
"Blocks are also objects. That can take parameters. see also Ruby language"
"Blocks can be used do define new control stuctures or something like handlers"
myVar := [:par1 | Transcript show: par1].
"Evalute Block."
myVar value: 2.
"same as"
[:par1 | Transcript show: par1] value: 2
"method cascading"
myVar method1; method2; method3
"equal to"
myVar method1. myVar method2. myVar method3Yes. It looks strange. It is not like Fortran, C, C++, Java or C#. It is also not like basic, perl, bash, tcl....Shin The Gin (2007-01-4) - If you are addicted to the convenience of a common Smalltalk environment, give Tcltalk a try! You'll find workspaces and browsers and even logging of changes, all without object orientation.
RS: Could one say that Smalltalk's "blocks with parameters" correspond to Tcl's upcoming apply lambdas (starting from 8.5)?NEM: Yes and no. As I understand it, Smalltalk blocks are full lexical closures, so they are a bit more powerful than Tcl's lambdas. Smalltalk is actually quite a nice functional programming language as well as OO.
RJH - 15th May 2013.Forgive my confusion; but the original author appears to claim that 'garbage collection' originated in smalltalk. I was under the impression that smalltalk originated somewhere around the early 1970s and that garbage collection originated with Mr. McCarthy's LISP in the late 1950s...Have I misunderstood the history - or is the claim that smalltalk originated GC a little overenthusiastic?Thanks, R.
