Karl Goiser <Lists at TassieMade.com.au> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I agree with Andrew.
> 
> Just imagine 4 programmers sitting at a table, each with their own 
> pluggable syntax preference trying to discuss some code.  Imagine a 
> new programmer brought into the project sitting at that table.  Would 
> each person not have to know every other person's syntax?  How much 
> more difficult would that be for the new Smalltalk programmer than 
> learning one new syntax?

Imagine that the 4 programmers speak a common language, English lets
say:

1: Hi guys! since we are going to work together on the same project,
what about using the same syntax, I like ST-80?
2: Works with me.
3: Brilliant, how come you get all the great ideas?
4: ok, for the better of the group (but in secret I will use my own in
my image, who will know)
1: allright then, and if somebody new will join us we'll teach him that
same syntax.
3: (he did it again)

> Here is a section of an earlier message from Henrik Gedenryd (I 
> recommend the whole message):
> [snip]

He focuses on other things, there is no conflict with flexible syntax
handling, that I know of. He says there are more important things, I agree.
But sometimes, I say, to get to those important things, syntax has to be a
solved problem, and I'm trying to contribute to that.

> Anyway, the initial reason for this discussion was about making it 
> easier to introduce people to the magic of Smalltalk and Squeak 
> (which, for mine, allowing Algol-ish syntax would not help).

I started (the latest part of) it, it wasnt only that. I believe it is a good architecture,
for many reasons and for many purposes. Easier introduction to people
who already know some other syntax is one of them. Not necessarily the
most important one, as many agree, there are more important things about
Squeak.

BTW, do you know that

  a < b ifTrue: [whatever] ifFalse: [whateverElse]

is not done with polymorphic message send. The ST80 syntax is no great
help for showing that.
(I have learned to like ST80 syntax, just suggesting that it isnt
necessarily the one best syntax for each and every purpose forever)

> Let me relate my personal experience with Squeak.
> [snip]
> But the biggest thing for me was the lack of an entry into the environment.

Same for me.

> [snip] 
> That's my experience anyway.

Mine to.

/Mats