[self-interest] Smalltalk basics first?
casey.obrien.r at gmail.com
Tue Feb 15 23:01:40 UTC 2011
What I'm saying is that Self has less concepts, so studying Smalltalk is likely to fill your head with stuff you don't need in Self; that said I think it MAY BE worth it because the core message-passing model is the same, you get the historical context, there are syntactic similarities (biggest diffs that I know of around object literals and the implicit self.)
OTOH you really will be more than doubling your work load to learn both. So if you aren't interested in Smalltalk, I'd say skip it. Repeated caveat: I'm a Smalltalk programmer dabbling in Self, so my perspective may be uninformed/distorted by my own context.
On Feb 15, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl at ml1.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Casey Ransberger wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Duke Normandin <dukeofperl at ml1.net> wrote:
> > > Hello List ...
> > >
> > > Given that Self is an "upward extension" of Smalltalk - if you will -
> > > I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be advisable for me to learn the
> > > very basics of Smalltalk syntax, before proceeding further with
> > > Self. Opinions please!
> > >
> > > Perhaps "Computer Programming using GNU Smalltalk" by Canol Gökel
> > > http://smalltalk.gnu.org/documentation/books
> > Probably not a bad idea. I can't say for sure how much of Smalltalk
> > will just confuse you, being myself new to Self.
> Do you know Smalltalk? If yes, did it hinder or help you?
> > It's worth pointing out that "upward extension" really isn't an
> > adequate description, I don't think: Self actually *removes*
> > concepts from Smalltalk. It's intended to be "smaller" than
> > Smalltalk in terms of total cognitive load.
> I _never_ implied that Self "removed" _anything_ from Smalltalk! :) It
> certainly seems "not as rich to digest" as Smalltalk - to me anyway.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Self-interest