3 ms·
The major similarities of Ruby and Smalltalk are semantic much more than syntactic (except perhaps for the existence of singleton classes). And as far as Rails
by jhgb 5y ago
The major similarities of Ruby and Smalltalk are semantic much more than syntactic (except perhaps for the existence of singleton classes). And as far as Rails is concerned, well, it probably wasn't written by a Smalltalker, but I fail to see how the existence of some specific framework changes how Ruby should be perceived as a language of its own.
- pavlov 5y agoI think most people would agree that the benefits of Smalltalk the language are inextricable from the runtime environment and GUI. Ruby has no such thing: it's pretty much only used for Rails and plain-jane Unix scripting. It's fair to judge the language in context of its actual applications.
- e12e 5y ago> I think most people would agree that the benefits of Smalltalk the language are inextricable from the runtime environment and GUI. Most, not all: https://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/manual/html_node/Overview.html#Overview https://www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/manual/html_node/Over... Although it looks like somewhere along the path with the "new" graphical browser they dropped the tag line "Smalltalk for those who can type". Rails is a monster, and historically pretty poor ruby code quality INMHO. That said, ruby does indeed miss an "image" concept, but is quite dynamic and object oriented. Some smalltalk patterns would work well with ruby, I think. There's also (the abandoned?) maglev ruby on top of gemstone/s object db for smalltalk.
- setpatchaddress 5y agoI dunno what most people think about the benefits of Smalltalk, but I do know that people think Ruby and Objective-C are part of the Smalltalk lineage because they use the Smalltalk object model and have similar dynamic properties.