Damien,

> What do you think about Ruby ? Is it better ?

Ruby is a language (tomorrow a new language will be out there)
 only a way to define specifications (build systems by declaration,
 as a set of rules/classes).

Smalltalk is not a language, Smalltalk has a syntax.
Smalltalk is not a container (the image), the image is a
 snapshot of aSmalltalk.
Smalltalk is not a VM nor an architecture (as it is not the O.S.).

Smalltalk is not one smalltalk for all of us.
Each person has one Smalltalk.

Smalltalk is an Ambient, an open system (open in contents
 and open in/through time).
You can draw an analogy with the natural ambient (nature
 is not a container, nor an object, it is an ambient).

In an ambient you can´t draw a limit because when you are
 drawing the line, more objects are created (for the line :-)
Smalltalk is the contents, plus the cynetics of
 the "contents" through time.

When building a system in smalltalk (smalltalk as a growing substrate)
 is related with preservation of system stability (as building systems
 with natural elements) and garbage/objects refactoring.

We name "Class" the elements used for system building only for
 historical reasons, our "Classes" are really Species (coevolution
 can be observed). They must NOT be called Classes because they
 are not elements of a formal specification (as in OO Languages).

> Any advantages/drawbacks with Smalltalk ?

Please resist the temptation to compare Smalltalk with OOLs...
If you think they can compared, there are good news for you using Smalltalk!

Smalltalk is a support to build objects without the limits of formal
 tecniques and/or object orientation.

In Smalltalk you can work:
1- Object Oriented (as with any other OOL like Ruby,Java,C++...)
2- with Objects (reducting the world to objects - practical reductionism)
3- in an Ambience complementing the limits of reduction-ism (and system
   construction/definition by segregation) with non-formal techniques.

If you use only (1) and do not want to get the beneffits of (2) and (3)
 you must pick the OOlanguage with the better syntax (+ reflective
 and/or metaprogramming capabilities if you really need them).

If you want to build robust and maintainable architectures (2),
 I recommend to select a robust Smalltalk (the best fit for
 your bussiness architecture and process).

It you want more, then use more than one Smalltalk,
 focus on people and the process of interdisciplinary
 development (where I know only one efficient support,
 the Smalltalk ambience).

best,
Ale.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of
> Damien Cassou
> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 5:50 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: What do you think about Ruby ?
>
> Ruby   is  a  programming   language  which   seduce  more   and  more
> developpers. It seems that the main programmer of Ruby was a Smalltalk
> developper before and has tried to enhance Smalltalk.
>
> However,  some Smalltalk  developers told  me  that ruby  has lots  of
> design problems.
>
> What do you think about Ruby ? Is it better ? Any advantages/drawbacks
> with Smalltalk ?
>
>
> Thank you
>
> -- 
> Damien Cassou
>   pour le Software Composition Group a Berne
>
>