On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, David Chase wrote:

[snip]
> I thought that this list was already pretty much for the converted,
> or at least the sympathetic.  "java sucks", "amen!" is, as they say,
> preaching to the choir, at least here.  It may feel good, you may
> get a good loud "amen" back, but it's not very productive.

Er....I'd be *wildly* suprised (Java sucks) if *any(Java sucks)one* who
said (Java sucks) "Java sucks" on the (Java sucks) Squeak list *imagined*
(Java sucks) that saying (Java sucks) "Java sucks" on the (Java
sucks) Squeak list was a (Java sucks) bit of (Java sucks) PRODUCTIVE (Java
sucks) behavior (and Java sure does suck).

On the (Java sucks) other hand (Java sucks), it's not like it (Java
sucks) consumes all *that* (Java sucks) much time or (Java sucks) energy
or even (Java sucks) good will. So who (Java sucks) cares?

>  Squeak's
> a bit of a fringe language, 

Yep. Bothers me not at all. Would I be better off if Squeak ruled the
world? Not as far as I can tell. Rather, not *necessarily*. Would more
money into Squeak development be nice? Sure. I guess. It depends. I like
to think that Squeak is a bit independent of Market Forces in the grand
sense, and I like it that way. Other folks don't, or think that Squeak
bending to the wind will help make it more the way they want. So, we
differ :)

> if you could get a slightly bigger
> bandwagon, that would probably be a good thing.

Eh. First, I think Squeak has a sufficient bandwagon. It and its community
has been growing steadily and fairly quickly for the 5 or so years I've
been using it. Sometimes there have been growing pains at that speed, as
well as "To slowing" pains. Speeding it up won't necessarily make it
better.

>  You might get
> someone to write "Squeak for dummies".

The chief value of which, afaict, would be that there would be a Squeak
book that I would not, and would not *want*, to own.

> > So, to get to the point, you should either quit whinging about
> >> how much Java sucks and how misguided Apple is, or you should
> >> do something about it.  And YOU should do something about it;

I see nothing wrong with whinging about Java. If Java can't take it, it
should get out of the kitchen and stop wrecking my toaster. *EVERYBODY*
whinges about other languages. More importantly *EVERYONE* whinges about
Java except those crippled by having to use it all the time :)

I've even (gasp) heard people complain about SQUEAK, if you can imagine!

[snip]
> There's at least one Squeak application that made me
> go "wow!", and that was the player-piano/orchestra.  I
> thought that was really cool.  However, I don't know what
> was underneath it.  What would complete the "wow!" is seeing
> that the code behind it (which I had a hard time finding)

Learning how to explore Squeak from the app into the code is a key
"aha" moment, in my experience. Obviously, you haven't gotten there
yet. It might be interesting to know what books/articles/whatever you used
so we can rectify them a bit.

I say this not to excuse, but there are efforts to make this sort of thing
happen. I.e., documentation. And it has gotten better over the years. It's
just very much non-trivial.

> is not too large, not too crammed full of special cases,
> easy to reuse, easy to understand, easy to extend.

Some Squeak code is like this, some not. It depends. I think I can speak
for everyone when I say that the *aim* is for all to be like that.

> In terms of Java versus Squeak, I wouldn't promote Squeak for
> writing compilers.

I know, but I don't see why not. Squeak is great for writing a wide
variety of compliers. You've not done it, I take it.

It's especially nice for dynamic scripting langauges that you want to
target to a portable but reasonably nippy VM.

People have used Smalltalk for compiler tech for years, just as they use
Prolog, Common Lisp, and other very high level languages.

>  (Yes, I know some people do, but I know
> someone who wrote an optimizing compiler in Fortran.  We did a
> vectorizer in PL/1, too.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea.)

Sure, just because people *do* doesn't mean it's a good idea. After all,
people *do* program in Java ;) But you've not given ONE reason why it's a
bad idea, or why you wouldn't recommend it. Indeed, AFAICT, you have *no*
experience with this at all.

> Java's type system isn't annoying enough there to make a
> difference 

That has to be, in part, a matter of taste.

> (and sometimes, it is very helpful to have
> things statically checked), 

AFAIK, the jury is still out.

> and a complex optimizing
> compiler is not an easy thing to to test by pieces.

What? Compilers, including optimizing ones, are among the most modular --
and well understood how to modularize -- sorts of projects. Ergo, you'll
have plenty of pieces to test.

Plus, "complex optimizing" compilers doesn't *nearly* exhaust the range of
compilers out there. Plus, think about Self for a minute.

Finally, I hardly see Java's type system as a win for compilers, it's not
like you can build an algebra in any natural way and apply complex
transformations in a type checked manner. I mean, it's still going to be a
dynamic OOP like system. (I'm ignoring Java addons that give you generics
or the like.)

You've just moved into troll land, as far as I'm concerned.

[snip]

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.