Python aka. Smalltalk Lite?
kohler at medien.tecmath.com
Fri Feb 11 16:40:22 CET 2000
Fredrik Lundh <effbot at telia.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
kROo4.5767$al3.76139 at newsc.telia.net...
> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> > (Smalltalk syntax looks funny, too, but it isn't so fundamental
> > to the language. Perhaps a more approachable version of Smalltalk
> > might be possible.)
> you mean Python?
> (yeah, I know that we haven't implemented everything
> just yet, but we're working on it ;-)
> seriously, what are the major shortcomings in Python
> from a Smalltalk professional's perspective?
> let's see:
> -- no blocks (lambda doesn't really cut it)
> -- type/class dichotomy (CPython implementation)
Smalltalk VM implementations are much smaller than the CPython
implementation, because of this.
Just take a look at squeak (www.squeak.org)
> -- no garbage collection (CPython implementation)
Yes. Those points are the most important ones.
-- metaprogramming is also an important topic. This is one reason why most
Smalltalk IDE's are so powerfull (Object inspectors
are an example)
-- Smalltalk's syntax is simpler. It's only a few rules and there are only
a handfull builtin names. This results in better programming tools
Browser for example)
-- Smalltalk's calling mechanism is much simpler than Pythons making it
easier to compile. Almost every Smalltalk implementation I have seens runs
faster than Python.
More information about the Python-list