=> 6/1/00 12:36:59 AM EDT, ok@atlas.otago.ac.nz [personal communication] => << The great ideas in Smalltalk are semantic. They'll survive the new additional Squeak syntax (whatever it happens to look like). And they'll survive underscores. >>
I agree completely. I tend to think of a Smalltalk program as a semantic construct associated with the parse tree for that program. The nature of this semantic construct is unfortunately ungrounded, somewhat waving the the air. The byte-code representation (the Blue Book description) is treading water very fast to be considered the standard for Smalltalk definition; I consider that it is rapidly on its way to becoming obsolete. It certain is obsolete in _my_ mental construct associated with the parse tree. At the moment, though, I don't see an alternate to the Blue Book description on the horizon. Unfortunately.
Nonetheless, you are correct, Smalltalk will survive underscores. But as a practical matter, my E-mail was attempting to state, in a somewhat rough and tumble manner, that underscores are not going to be introduced in this round. IMnsHO.
However, if the great ideas in Smalltalk are semantic (to which I agree), then why is there so much heat (and little light) being presented on this issue? I haven't counted them (I just did, I counted 44); why are there so many E-mail postings on this issue? And why are these E-mail postings so angst ridden? And why are these E-mail postings failing to converge (and cease and desist)?
<< <<Do you think WE_DONT_WRITE_ENGLISH_THIS_WAY_SO_WHY_SHOULD_WE_WRITE_PROGRAMS_THIS_WAY is an improvement?>>
This is an invalid argument having the same form as "A. I think salt is better than sugar on pies. B. Oh yeah? Then you must really love salt by itself." >>
I don't think it is an invalid argument. I don't think of it as an argument at all; it was a demonstration, as was your (correctly formed Smalltalk global variable) identifier preceeding it. User interface considerations associated with programming languages depend upon a common view shared by the users of the language. This common view (of the user interface considerations) comes from some rather subjective evaluations and sometimes practical admissions. There is some magic in the lexical fundamentals and syntax (as well as the semantics) of a computer language (certainly in Smalltalk) that cannot be analyzed entirely from a strictly formal perspective.
Smalltalk appears to be the simplest language around (in terms of its semantic definition) that has massive computation power. FORTH, LISP in its original habitat, and Fortran (owhy) are unarguably simpler, but LISP bigots aside, Smalltalk has more descriptive power than is normally available in such a simple langauge. I want to know what they were smoking in Palo Alto in the 70's (and is there still any around) :-). Squeak seems to be what we're smoking in the 21st century, and it appears to have a fine aroma and bouquet. And besides, the price is right.
Cheers, Jerry. ____________________________
Jerry L. Archibald systemObjectivesIncorporated ____________________________
[owhy (for those still Dana Scott challenged) :- 'or what have you']
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org