Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.ti.com!ticipa!clw
From: clw@ticipa.works.ti.com (Chris Winemiller)
Subject: Re: C++ vs Smalltalk?
Message-ID: <1995Oct18.220352.26374@ticipa.works.ti.com>
Organization: None
References: <45u80r$kc3@mujibur.inmind.com> <1995Oct17.171253.25466@ticipa.works.ti.com> <463fs7$neb@inforamp.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 22:03:52 GMT
Lines: 31
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:155229 comp.lang.smalltalk:29618

In article <463fs7$neb@inforamp.net> mwai@qsystor.com writes:
>clw@ticipa.works.ti.com (Chris Winemiller) wrote:
>
>>I don't see the two as being that different.  I had one experience of
>>picking up C after a long absence from it (because I'm in Smalltalk so
>>much) and I had to refresh myself on C library functions.  Relearning C
>>syntax required little to no effort.

>Relearning C syntax required *little to no effort*?  You got to be
>kidding me!  

Nope, not kidding.

<snip>

>Unless you code your Smallalk methods like the way you code in C (e.g.
>use method name like >>printf:  instead of >> printOn: or implement
>CASE statemet in your Smalltalk, or your Smalltalk methods somehow
>coded like PlatformFunctions methods), I don't believe "relearning C"
>is a light effort.

I don't code Smalltalk like I code C.  To me, relearning the C syntax
wasn't that bad, but re-learning *C functions* WAS hard!  (Not to
mention trying to remember which #include files to use.)

Regards,
Chris
==============================================================
Chris Winemiller               Internet: clw@works.ti.com
Disclaimer: I do not speak for TI.
==============================================================
