3 ms·

> they did not start out as a "function" mechanism, they started out as just a delayed evaluation mechanism Do you have a citation for this? Not disputing it,

> they did not start out as a "function" mechanism, they started out as just a delayed evaluation mechanism Do you have a citation for this? Not disputing it, I'd just like to see whether there's something in Smalltalk's history I have overlooked, or didn't notice on my first reading.

mpweiher 8y ago
That was what the article was about. The scans link to the source material Smalltalk-80: Bits of History, Words of Advice, one to the book on Amazon, the other to a PDF scan. Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised so much of the discussion has been about LISP features that are neither in dispute nor subject of the article.
- EdwardCoffin 8y ago
  > they did not start out as a "function" mechanism, they started out as just a delayed evaluation mechanism I still don't see where you are getting this from. The scans you provide [1] don't make this claim. For instance, look at page 17 of Technical Characteristics of Smalltalk-76 [2]: > heights _ students transform each to each height The document seems to have some OCR problems - I'm pretty sure that underscore is meant to be a left arrow, or := in more modern Smalltalks. I understand this to be the equivalent of Smalltalk-80's > heights := students collect: [:each | each height]. which is clearly a mechanism for mapping a function over a collection, not just a delayed evaluation mechanism. [1] You might add to your article a footnote specifying that the citations from Bits of History, Words of Advice are from pages 14-15 [2] http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/Filene/Smalltalk-76/.syntax.press!1.pdf http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/Filene/Smalltalk-76/.sy...
- EdwardCoffin 8y ago
  > Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised so much of the discussion has been about LISP features that are neither in dispute nor subject of the article. It's because Lisp macros and their motivations were described inaccurately, and some people want to make sure that these inaccuracies are not perpetuated.

mpweiher 8y ago

That was what the article was about. The scans link to the source material Smalltalk-80: Bits of History, Words of Advice, one to the book on Amazon, the other to a PDF scan. Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised so much of the discussion has been about LISP features that are neither in dispute nor subject of the article.

EdwardCoffin 8y ago
> they did not start out as a "function" mechanism, they started out as just a delayed evaluation mechanism I still don't see where you are getting this from. The scans you provide [1] don't make this claim. For instance, look at page 17 of Technical Characteristics of Smalltalk-76 [2]: > heights _ students transform each to each height The document seems to have some OCR problems - I'm pretty sure that underscore is meant to be a left arrow, or := in more modern Smalltalks. I understand this to be the equivalent of Smalltalk-80's > heights := students collect: [:each | each height]. which is clearly a mechanism for mapping a function over a collection, not just a delayed evaluation mechanism. [1] You might add to your article a footnote specifying that the citations from Bits of History, Words of Advice are from pages 14-15 [2] http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/Filene/Smalltalk-76/.syntax.press!1.pdf http://xeroxalto.computerhistory.org/Filene/Smalltalk-76/.sy...
EdwardCoffin 8y ago
> Quite frankly, I was a bit surprised so much of the discussion has been about LISP features that are neither in dispute nor subject of the article. It's because Lisp macros and their motivations were described inaccurately, and some people want to make sure that these inaccuracies are not perpetuated.