You are sending you emails to the wrong watters.  Please check your address.

Thanks.

At 02:50 PM 2/10/00, you wrote:
>Giovanni Giorgi wrote:
> >
> > Stephan Rudlof wrote:
> >
> > Then I find out Smalltalk....
> >
> > > [...]C is quiet far away from Smalltalk.
> > >
> > > So, how do you want to exploit the C background of the potential readers
> > > for didactic concepts which introduce Smalltalk and OOP?
> >
> > I think Smaltalk has some strong point in this direction: Smalltalk is the
> > first language with a simple but clear concept of class.
>
>But where is the connection to a C'ish background?
>
>It's my opinion, too, that Smalltalk is a nice and clear language and
>has important concepts in a very clearly form.
>But you want to write a book for C programmers which are far away from
>OOP.
>I think its difficult to reuse C knowledge to learn Smalltalk, I don't
>know how to build a didactic bridge between these worlds...
>To avoid misunderstandings: It's good to take C programmers away from C
>to ST, but I'm not sure if the C knowledge of these persons can be
>exploited with the goal of a shorter learning time as learning ST as
>first programming language.
>
> >
> > > [...]
> > > Indeed it doesn't makes sense to learn C++ to learn ST then, the
> > > opposite - if learning C++ at all, but we are not in an idealistic world
> > > - is much more better IMHO.
> >
> > Yes, but the idea is to ignore completly C++ and using only C-concept...
>
>No problem with ignoring C++ (it doesn't help to learn ST), but how to
>use C-concepts to learn ST?
>Or do you just want to make comparisons like 'this is bad in C and it is
>much easier to deal with in Smalltalk'...
>
> > For example, casts are so frequently in C....but Smalltalk do not need 
> them!
> > What I observe is simple: Smalltalk uses only 2-3 concepts for building a
> > rational view of th language: it is reduced to the minimum!
> > Pascal is similar, but it has a two-page type compatibilty rule, and some
> > limitations (no gui at all for example, or no large standard library).
> >
> > Is Smalltalk simpler than C?....
>
>The core language is much simpler (just compare the operator precedence
>rules, to take one point);
>if you take the 'standard' libs into account ST is much more powerful;
>as development environment ST is much better as all I have seen so far
>(stop and start again at the same point where you have left it for
>example);
>and for GUIs you have to compare ST classes with C libraries like ? or
>you go directly to VC++...
>
>Regarding the last point I think there has to be done some work in
>Squeak yet; a VW-like GUI-Builder (perhaps with an easier to handle
>application logic) with - boring, but the world wants them - standard
>controls would be very neat.
>
>But the development of Squeak is so fast, that I think this will be come
>in the short future.
>
>Stephan