Collection interfaces

[Troy Brumley]

in article anhu6.18497$Im6.1938203 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net, topmind
at topmind at technologist.com wrote on 3/22/01 1:57 AM:

> 
> "Troy Brumley" <t*b*r*u*m*l*e*y at f*u*s*e.n*e*t> wrote in message
> news:B6DE17D2.D6B0%t*b*r*u*m*l*e*y at f*u*s*e.n*e*t...
>> in article 3AB8A730.4BE13D22 at mail.com, James A. Robertson at
>> jarober at mail.com wrote on 3/21/01 8:06 AM:
>> 
>>> topmind wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> http://www.cincom.com/smalltalk
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I only see a front page, not a parsing example.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Follow the tutorial link - it's right there on that page.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Besides, what are you comparing it to so say
>>>> it is better than a procedural/relational approach?
>>> 
>>> It's vastly easier than similar code done in C or basic, for example
>> 
>> User testimonial here ... last week I had to rip thorugh a pile of IIS
> logs
>> to get some statistics for some people, and I used the original (non-gui)
>> tutorial code as a starting point. I was once again impressed with how
> much
>> easier it was to do several common data processing tasks in Smalltalk than
>> it was in Assembly language or C or Pascal.
>> 
> 
> Give me specific requirements and I bet I can match it on code size.
> 
> C, Pascal, and Assembly are hardly what I would use for code-size
> contests.
> 
> Of course, there is more to comparing than code size, but those often
> get very subjective or fuzzy.

I rarely worry about code size except how it relates to code clarity. Even
back in my assembly oriented youth I tried to keep functions under one page
on a listing for the sake of clarity.

I mention C, Pascal, and Assembly because they are my usual tool set, or
were until I discovered Smalltalk. I've done a lot of business programming
over the years in procedural environments and used more languages than those
(even COBOL and RPG) but for the heavy lifting I would always stick with
them.

Again, until I discovered Smalltalk :)

I've seen Perl and run away screaming. Python and Eiffel are on the to learn
list, but Smalltalk seems to have the power I need for the tasks I want to
do these days. Objects are becoming more and more natural as I use them, and
my code improves contantly.

> 
>> I'm a long time procedural type, learning to really think in and use
>> Smalltalk has been an interesting experience.
>> 
>> I've also done a lot of database "fixing" and Smalltalk has usually beat
> out
>> raw SQL for anything but the most trivial tasks.
>> 
> 
> Fixing what? SQL is not good at string parsing.

Usually sweeping changes, or dangling referential integrity problems.

>> All that said, I think it's the environment (interactive) that improves
> the
>> experience as much as the language itself. If I had a reasonable
>> interpretive BASIC environment available, I could probably do many of the
>> things I did in Smalltalk almost as easily ... certainly more easily than
>> with C.
>> 
> 
> I find interpretive environments potentially more compact code-wise than
> static ones.

No argument here.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -tmind-
>>>>>> oop.ismad.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> James A. Robertson
>>>>> Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
>>>>> jarober at mail.com
>>>>> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
>>>>> 
>> 
> 
>