I hope Joerg. that from all these contributions some skillfull person will
put together the Definitive Smalltalk. Not just a tutorial but, an analysis
of the Author's INTENTION.
Perhaps easily attached as url (or list of same) to any conversation.
Perhaps the Smalltalk Author('s) might want to kick it off.
Perhaps it already exists (free).
I am one who thinks that the IDE is perfect and is struggling with the IOE
(Integrated Operations Development) aspect:
unfortunately forward development feels the need to "encroach" on the
intrinsic perfection of "Architypical Smalltalk".  It's like touching up the
Mona Lisa.
The IOE needs a good dose of INTENTION just like the original Smalltalk had.
That might put an end to much of the (creative)speculation on this list and
allow the hackers to get on with their important work.
Yes!  I'm a little embarrassed that the effect of my "opinion" might
eventually clog up the list.
Why not a Squeak-IDE at blah and Squeak-IOE at blah That should be more than
enough for the aging and  would be "theorists" like myself.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joerg Beekmann" <jbeekmann.deepcove at telus.net>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 4:56 AM
Subject: RE: [FYI] Java vs Squeak/Smalltalk


>
>
> >Everything is an object ( no primitive types which are not objects ).
> >Therefore, no need to understand language constructs which separate the
> >two.  As far as the programmer is concerned, there is nothing in the
> >environment which appears to be of a fundamentally different character
from
> >everything else.
>
>
> Almost but not quite true. For example the following shows the primative
> types poking through:
>
> (ByteArray new: 5) at: 1 put: 8
>        v.s.
> (ByteArray new: 5) at: 1 put: 'foo'
>
>
> Joerg
>
>
>