4 ms·
One of the very few things that most people can agree upon, is that SmallTalk is object-oriented. SmallTalk definitely has closures. Also Java has them.
by aliasEli 5y ago
One of the very few things that most people can agree upon, is that SmallTalk is object-oriented.
SmallTalk definitely has closures.
Also Java has them.
- gnufx 5y agoI don't know what he considered the mainstream -- perhaps not Smalltalk -- but the comment pre-dates Java. (I think his POP-2 pre-dates Smalltalk.) If you take the remark seriously, it's probably not just a question of having closures but what you (can reasonably) do with them. A Schemer might experiment with implementations of different object systems, Smalltalk-like, prototype-instance (about a page of code), and CLOS-like. Do people do so in Java (or even Smalltalk) and what does it look like if so?
- scroot 5y agoIn terms of Smalltalk, the answer is "yes". Some examples of what it looks like include the original Self language / environment [1], Newspeak [2], and even Tony Garnock-Jones' implementation of Actors [3]. Some of this has to do with the fact that the virtual machine for many Smalltalk implementations is implemented in Smalltalk itself. So you can start with Smalltalk and end up with something modified enough to be considered different. [1] https://selflanguage.org/ https://selflanguage.org/ [2] https://newspeaklanguage.org/ https://newspeaklanguage.org/ [3] https://tonyg.github.io/squeak-actors/about.html https://tonyg.github.io/squeak-actors/about.html