[self-interest] Re: An OO history

Samantha Atkins samantha at objectent.com
Sat Apr 14 08:25:42 UTC 2001

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. 

- samantha

More information about the Self-interest mailing list