[FYI] Java vs Squeak/Smalltalk
gary.play at btopenworld.com
Fri Jan 18 23:28:53 UTC 2002
18/01/02 03:11:06, "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I see your point Gary but, weren't all these features envisaged by the
I'm sure they maybe could have possibly been. But that doesn't mean they have been
implemented or the implementation figured out.
>Good well thought out designs give more freedom to desire: spontaneity (to
>be safely creative). >
What would does that mean in layman's terms or to a person who does not possess the privilege
of wearing Kant-tinted-spectacles.
>Just the one unique concept, message passing, for
There is no one unique concept.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary McGovern" <gary.play at btopenworld.com>
>To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 1:01 PM
>Subject: Re: [FYI] Java vs Squeak/Smalltalk
>> 16/01/02 17:47:45, "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >Philosophically and Technically and, keeping concept IDE squarely in
>> >St. is without a doubt, as close to perfect an IDE as it can possibly
>> I wouldn't agree with that. The direct manipulation / etoy / scripting can
>be taken much further I'm
>> sure it will at one point (bearing in mind the objective of a Dynabook).
>And the method structure
>> could be improved to show dependencies and sequences (my user experience
>having not written
>> the methods).
>> (Not wishing to be flamed as no offense is intended)
More information about the Squeak-dev