Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!bnr.co.uk!corpgate!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!tina.mrco.carleton.ca!knight
From: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Subject: Re: What makes Smalltalk better than ..
Message-ID: <knight.789506385@tina.mrco.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Reply-To: knight@mrco.carleton.ca (Alan Knight)
Organization: Carleton University
References: <3ea2q6$kg8@freenet.vancouver.bc.ca> <ANDREW.95Jan4133201@srsunc.shlrc.mq.edu.au> <pdlogan.26.0009779F@orglobe.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 1995 19:19:45 GMT
Lines: 47

In <pdlogan.26.0009779F@orglobe.intel.com> pdlogan@orglobe.intel.com (Patrick D. Logan) writes:

>All of the features I've seen listed so far are not unique to Smalltalk. They 
>are shared by many Lisp implementations, particularly commercial CommonLisps. 
>Other languages with interactive development environments share some or all, 
>as well.

>So my question becomes what is the difference between Smalltalk and, say, 
>CommonLisp?

>Smalltalk has simple syntax and semantics compared to CommonLisp.

Yes, the standard point of comparison is usually against C++, which
makes the list rather long. CLOS can do just about anything Smalltalk
can, and lots of stuff besides (multimethods, method combination, and
separate metaclass inheritance spring to mind). Smalltalk has more in
common with LISP than is fashionable to admit, given the current
unpopularity of LISP.

I can think offhand of 3 things I would consider advantages in
Smalltalk over LISP (but note that none of them are "things you can't
do in Common Lisp").

- Simplicity, both in syntax and semantics. Common Lisp suffers IMHO
from featureitis and confusing syntax. The inheritance semantics in
particular, are very complex.

- enforced encapsulation, and a clear concept of who owns what method
(i.e. no multimethods)

- purity. CLOS suffers from using non-objects for the basics.


>There are things I miss, particularly syntax extension and (for ST/V) real 
>lexical closures. But all in all, I am glad Smalltalk has the popularity it 
>does, and that it appears to be succeeding and even growing.

Most of the others do have proper lexical closures.

To say that it's "even growing" is quite a severe understatement.
Smalltalk is doing extremely well right now.

-- 
 Alan Knight                | The Object People
 knight@acm.org             | Smalltalk and OO Training and Consulting
 alan_knight@mindlink.bc.ca | 509-885 Meadowlands Dr.
 +1 613 225 8812            | Ottawa, Canada, K2C 3N2
