On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:38:00 +0900, Douglas Livingstone
<rampant / gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Tom, that's the meaning I was after :)
> (Any feedback as to why I didn't make sense appreciated!)

Sorry, Douglas, for misinterpreting what you have said. It just didn't
catch my mind your analogy between Smalltalk in the past and Java
today. I think the relation between Smalltalk to Ruby in the past is
not similar to the one Java has to Ruby in present days.

Smalltalk seems to me that it never caught up really, because the
developer base kept relatively small and many people find the
Smalltalk way hard (maybe because it is radical and many like the
well-known).  It is a cult language, just like Lisp, I think. But
Java, everybody programs Java, and that does not mean nothing about
the code quality.

[In fact, Ruby inheritance has much to do with Smalltalk - the whole
history of iterators and other features. Without offense, one can say
that Ruby is Smalltalk made right (or at least one way to make it
right).]

In my own experience, Java makes me suffer. So many struggle with
getting types right, so hard to get real reusable code (in the sense
that making code more generic usually implies more changes than one
would expect), it is hard for me to be productive with it. Smalltalk
is more like Ruby in not getting in your way as you experiment.  I
guess that Smalltalk programmers are happier as Ruby programmers at
the end of the day than Java developers.

Regards,
Adriano.