4 ms·
>Smalltalk has the cleanest, purest implementation of object-oriented concepts; not even Java, Ruby, nor CLOS can lay claim to that. I'll take "powerful" versu
by flavio81 9y ago
>Smalltalk has the cleanest, purest implementation of object-oriented concepts; not even Java, Ruby, nor CLOS can lay claim to that.
I'll take "powerful" versus "cleanest and purest" any day, thank you very much. Sorry but i'm staying with CLOS whenever i want to do object-oriented programming without feeling limited.
The author is on a pro-Smalltalk crusade (which I find just fine, Smalltalk is a great lang, and in a perfect world, it would be as popular as Javascript is today), but does so at the expense of constantly deriding Clojure, Common Lisp and Racket, which I find silly.
- systems 9y agoi would take "large ecosystem" over "powerful" or "cleanest and purest" whenever i am in the process of picking a language for a project, i check if there is a library for what i want to do
- SomeHacker44 9y agoEvery time I use Clojure for the nuts and bolts of software engineering it reminds me why I prefer Common Lisp. Every time I need to get something done of any magnitude, it reminds me why I prefer Clojure to Common Lisp. So... What "systems" said. Truly, Clojure is a Lisp for Getting Stuff Done, as it has access to an astounding number of libraries targeting the JVM, largely allowing you to focus on your product's core.
- flavio81 9y agoYes but on the other hand Smalltalk is an established language with a long history, i wouldn't be surprised if you are able to find all the libraries you need.
- louiscyphre 9y agoSorry, but the author has never derided Clojure and Racket. Common Lisp, yes, but not Clojure and Racket. He actually likes Scheme. He has factually pointed out that most people are turned off by Lisp syntax. This is not an insult, simply a statement of fact.