4 ms·
I totally loved the idea at first. In practice it became kind of what CoffeeScript is to JavaScript, which is not a lot more than a syntactic preference that do
by sebastianconcpt 3y ago
I totally loved the idea at first. In practice it became kind of what CoffeeScript is to JavaScript, which is not a lot more than a syntactic preference that doesn't help you when you need to debug. Actually hurts you a little bit because that indirection forces you to become the cognitive mapping of their differences. You eventually can become a comfortable "Smalltalk" author in LitleSmallscript and a decently productive JavaScript debugger but at the end of the day it just became easier to be polyglot and not have it as barrier to share code with other devs when needed. So I didn't ended up using it for any project.
- em-bee 3y agothat makes sense. i have been using coffeescript, and i know what you mean. the main draw for a different syntax for me was readability as coffeescript had some advanced constructs that javascript didn't have, but since then javascript has caught up and so coffeescript no longer offers that much of a benefit that it once did. in difference to coffeescript smalltalk at least offers the benefit of a syntax that is also usable elsewhere.
- sebastianconcpt 3y agoI think it was in 2016 that I've used CoffeeScript for one project for some months. With daily usage I ended up acquiring taste and ended up enjoying it. For LittleSmallScript I knew the syntax taste will go to the roof. And you're making a great point, indeed parts of a program written with Smalltalk syntax would have a lot degree of reuse.