On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 17:02:21 +0900,
Darren Crotchett <rubylang / usmstudent.com> wrote:
>
> Smalltalk.  I like it.  Smalltalk feels "natural".  It seems very intuitive, 
> consistent and predictable.  After learning the basics, I could often guess 
> how to do stuff.  But, I get the impression that the Smalltalk community is 
> shrinking (or at least, stagnate).  

Ruby feels like Smalltalk without IDE. To make up for that loss, you get
regular expressions. If you liked Smalltalk, you'll like Ruby. If you
liked the Unix-approach to things, too, you'll love Ruby.

> __init__?  And, I can never seem to remember if it's str.length() or 
> length(str).  

Python started non-OO and still carries this burden with it. Ruby OTOH
was OO from the beginning.

>
> Ruby.  I've been reading up on Ruby, a little.  I just bought the Programming 
> Ruby book.  It seems to be a lot like Smalltalk.  I'm thinking that I like it 
> better than Python because it seems a lot more consistent like Smalltalk.  
> But, then I question, if it is good because it is a lot like Smalltalk, why 
> not just use Smalltalk?  I'm sure there must be some good answers to this 
> question.  

You can do lots of things within the Smalltalk environment, in a very
natural and consistent way. It's a little bit harder if you have to
interface to the different philosophy behind OSes like Unix, where
everything is not an object, but a (text) file.

Ruby is well suited for such file-based environments. You won't have the
natural persistence that ST objects show within a saved image. But this
can be both curse and blessing.

>
> Also, is the Ruby community experiencing a lot of growth or what?  

steady growth ...
s.