[Enough already] Re: Proposal3: Make $_ a valid identifier character
JArchibald at aol.com
JArchibald at aol.com
Thu Jun 1 07:22:48 UTC 2000
=> 6/1/00 12:36:59 AM EDT, ok at 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 It certain is obsolete in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']
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|