Reinout Heeck wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
Ruby does not use a "Smalltalk-like syntax".
Ruby took the 'best' of a couple of languages among which Smalltalk, so it had to 'fix' the Smalltalk syntax.
Since the Byte article on Ruby I lost interest in trying it, it looks broken to a Smalltalker, specifically the absence of named parameters (keywords), the implied declaration of block parameters (if a method takes a block as an artgument Ruby uses zero characters to indicate that) and the dichotomy between blocks and closures all seem a step backwards to me.
You would reject a language over named parameters? To each their own I guess but this seems like a weak criteria. Blocks are not closures. True closures don't exist in Smalltalk. Smalltalk syntax leaves much to be desired. Which is not surprising. It is surprising to see a language with rather different design and usage criteria criticized for not being enough like Smalltalk.