From: Nicolas Pelletier <nicolas.pelletier3@...>
Date: 2008-06-08T20:46:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby vs Smalltalk

Hello,

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Marc Heiler <shevegen@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>
> Actually come to look at it, I dont so much like the syntax of
> smalltalk. I think Ruby's syntax is cleaner than smalltalk's and I also
> am not too fond of using := instead of = for assignment. (The Io
> language uses := too and I'd really have it the other way around, so
> that = means assignment, rather than "update slot")

Back in the old days, the code for the assignment operator in
Smalltalk produced a left arrow. Now that ASCII is generally used, the
corresponding code is that of underscore, which does not make clear
its intent (assignment). This lead to the introduction of the :=
syntax for assignment.

Squeak Smalltalk includes a font that still has the old left arrow.

> Anyway, there is one thing which I believe totally rocks in smalltalk
> and I still have not understood it completely.
>
> It is that image thing.

Images are good because they come with persistance and session
management. On the other hand, they can accumulate a big pile of
"dust". I have found I needed a strict discipline while using images
to not loose track of what is inside and what is not.

> But it seems as if this whole VM or rather image thing is hardly used
> outside Smalltalk. Which sounds like a shame, unless I missed something
> perhaps? Can ruby have such an image based system additionally?

There are Lisp or ML systems that use images, too.

-- 
Nico