small-talk

All three languages -- Self, Smalltalk, and Ruby -- make it easy to add behavior at run time.

Smalltalk was one of the first languages built around the concept of objects.

I never "got" Smalltalk, which means I was never able to do much meaningful work with it.

Smalltalk was the first environment I know of that had a tightly coupled language.

They treat empty space like an awkward pause in a conversation that should be filled as soon as possible with smalltalk.

From the viewpoint of innovation, Smalltalk is one of the great masterpieces of software.

I developed my ability to build object-oriented programs quite a bit later, long after giving up on Smalltalk.

The concept of categories is borrowed from languages like Smalltalk and Objective-C (see Resources).

As a Java developer, you may ask yourself, "How could a 13-year-old book about Smalltalk have anything to do with me? "

Smalltalk, with its object-oriented approach, required us to approach both problems and solutions in a different way.

Like Smalltalk, Self represents control structures with message passing, and Self relies on an image that is always running.

Technically you could do *all* the work in Smalltalk but there is some performance issues with doing that and there is no real benefit.

It arose from the Smalltalk project at Xerox PARC, where it was conceived as a way to organize some early GUI applications.

But with the central market, the Yang great wild goose hereafter maintains the smalltalk the behavior, has the question to point out.

If C is viewed as an object-oriented language alternative to Smalltalk , it is an inexpensive alternative.

You build a system, so it gets to the limit of what a few people can do and there Smalltalk doesn't work too well.

I was never able to really understand Smalltalk, mostly because of its very cryptic (to my mind) syntax.

Smalltalk seemed like a clean, simple and powerful language.

The sample implementations appear in both C and Smalltalk, yet they take advantage of few of Smalltalk's advanced language features.

In Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, Kent Beck defines composed method (which I write about extensively in The Productive Programmer).

Smalltalk, like UNIX, has a simple core, based upon objects and message exchange.

I'm not suggesting that we'll all be programming in Smalltalk in the next 10 years.

With Self and Smalltalk, any change you make to the existing class is by definition a run-time modification.

The lifecycle of Smalltalk programs was iterative, piecemeal, and organic.

However, people were not trained to think this way when Smalltalk first appeared.

However, it does retain the ability to run Smalltalk code.

This Smalltalk code probably looks unnatural to you.

In addition, Eric also implemented the Smalltalk paradigm where collections can execute procedures on their elements.

Delayed binding lets Smalltalk applications keep running throughout the development cycle.

Similarly, in Smalltalk, you can add a method or attribute through calling the appropriate message (compile in some dialects).

But a class of languages -- such as Smalltalk, Self, and Ruby -- are even more dynamic and allow even better ways to delay binding.

Smalltalk: Not everything in Simula is an object.

One reason often quoted for learning Smalltalk is that it is 'pure' and thus force people to think and program 'object oriented.

In Smalltalk, everything is an object, and most behaviors make use of message passing.

In 1972, Xerox PARC introduced the Smalltalk language, which relied on a VM for execution.

The whole Smalltalk language is built on the premise of delayed binding.

Smalltalk developers build onto a continuously running application called the image.

We are applying our persistence to the Smalltalk Seaside framework. It will be released this Fall.

Westerners use a lot of 'small talk' in the office.

I think Smalltalk made a fundamental error.

LISP, like Smalltalk, is a language that is outstandingly simple, consistent, and powerful.

Languages such as Smalltalk and Python also support mix-in inheritance.

Smalltalk was so interactive that we just said, well, let's just program it and see.

It is similar to the idea of a workspace, for example, in Smalltalk.