claird at lairds.com
Wed Jun 4 17:05:46 CEST 2003
In article <bbkuu3$t24$1 at panix3.panix.com>, Aahz <aahz at pythoncraft.com> wrote:
>In article <mailman.1054726447.7340.python-list at python.org>,
>Gerrit Holl <gerrit at nl.linux.org> wrote:
>>Smalltalk isn't practical.
>That's not quite true. I know plenty of Smalltalk programmers who would
>disagree, and Squeak is making some inroads.
But it's almost true. As fond as I am of Squeak--and,
let's note, *correct* programs, as Smalltalk facilitates,
are eminently practical--I think Smalltalk is on the
mostly-wrong side of a great historical divide. Python's
made to play nicely with others; you can extend it, embed
it, wrap it, call out from it, connect to OS-level resources,
and so on. Smalltalk's a consummate expression of a more
insular model, where everything *is* Smalltalk. With a gun
to my head, I'd be willing to abbreviate that as "impractical".
Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
More information about the Python-list