On May 17, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Alan Lovejoy wrote:

> I think our attitude is wrong, even if we're "right."  We  
> absolutely should
> enable more "traditional" approaches for doing Smalltalk  
> programming.  If
> the Mountain won't come to Mohammed, then Mohammed must go to the  
> Mountain.

I like the attitude, but I think it's really tough in practice. I see  
two problems:

1) The tools for doing "traditional" programming would have to be  
implemented by fairly adept Smalltalkers. This means that they're  
working on tools based in a paradigm they don't themselves share.  
They'd be creating tools they have no interest in using. Who's going  
to want to put effort into that, and who could do it well?

2) The reasons Smalltalk is good are basically the same as the  
reasons it's different. If we enable newcomers to retain their old  
habits and coding style, are we really doing them a service? We just  
make it that much less likely they'll learn the Smalltalk way, and  
ultimately give them no reason to use Smalltalk at all. Heck, if you  
want a more "traditional" version of Smalltalk, just use Ruby. The  
syntax is a little awkward, but otherwise, it's all there.

Colin