[squeak-dev] Renaming "Squeak"
david.mitchell at gmail.com
Wed May 14 22:07:29 UTC 2008
> > But, if you are trying to write code that is portable across Smalltalk
> > dialects, you avoid brace notation.
> All dialects have a way to modify the parser don't they (probably a
> really simple way in many of them)? Maybe an alternative would be to
> just make a package that adds the syntax to any Smalltalk. Then
> people could use it if the want and just site the package as a
I think modifying the parser is a pretty big expectation for an
application or framework.
> > As I think it would be easier to update. I use literal forms to save
> > myself typing but when I commit code, I'd rather have the long form.
> > In fact, I've sent #sourceString to literal arrays so I could get the
> > long form without all the typing.
> That is a good way of doing it, but the maintenance cost comes from
> how much code is there, not how much was typed. This is a huge
> problem Java has. Java wizards say "It doesn't matter how verbose the
> syntax is, I just generate all the boilerplate". But that doesn't
> help the guy maintaining the code very much.
Wasn't my point. I think the long form is clearer. One of the great
things about Smalltalk is the simple object+message syntax. Brace
notation is something else. It can be handy at times, but I think the
other form is clearer.
More information about the Squeak-dev