Squeak primitives
Blake
blake at kingdomrpg.com
Tue Aug 9 10:57:01 UTC 2005
I was reading an old colleague's blog and came across this:
---
http://blogs.msdn.com/texblog/archive/2005/07/08/437002.aspx
This is a remarkably idealistic point of view -- ideal and also quite
impractical. What a truly beautiful world it would be when everything
could be an object and developers were free to extend primitive types with
impunity. The problem is, this has been done in the past (e.g.,
Smalltalk) and it has failed to achieve commercial success, largely
because it's impossible (today, anyway) to make a language perform at a
level acceptable for most applications without primitive strings, ints,
bools, etc.
---
I was having two difficulties with it:
1. Isn't Smalltalk basically competitive with C#? Yeah, it's slower, but
not as much slower as, say, VB has been over the years. And it's not
nearly as slow as Python or Ruby, which are currently far more popular.
2. Doesn't Smalltalk have primitive strings, ints, bools, etc?
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|