Smalltalk appreciation thread

I had a quick look into Smalltalk today. Shit totally rocks, despite the fact it was created in the 80s.

Why can't modern OO languages get this one thing right? Everything must be an object. No exceptions.

Too bad the best Smalltalk implementation is for children.

I tried to start learning small talk but the IDE is fucked up.

Smalltalk, the Squeak implementation, and the IDE are all awesome. Although I prefer generic functions.

Smalltalk:
2+2*2 => 8

Java:
2+2*2 => 6

Java gets this one right. Smalltalk doesnt

NO EXCEPTIONS

>>5
What do you mean? Java seems to be evaluating very inconsistently, rather than following a simple rule like Smalltalk, Forth, Lisp, or other quality languages.

It's shit, all the IDEs are shit, and it sucks major ass all around.  We got some good research papers out of it in the '80s, now let it die in peace.

>>7
``A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.''
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

>>9
``Your wrong.''
- Abelson (1956-2007)

Too bad the best Smalltalk implementation is for children.
What's wrong with that? You don't like children?

>>9
But a compassion for that which is not and cannot be useful and lovely, is degrading and futile.

>>11
: /

>>1
Everything an object? -- sounds like Ruby to me.  No primitive types to have to box in that one. (in b4 "slow as fuck")

>>12
And yet, when one gets right down to it, the real question seems not to be that of preference for utilitarian vs. the idealized, but rather whether or not my anus will be haxxed

>>11,13
I'll never understand why people sage on the text boards. I suspect it's merely the sentiment of disapproval that the poster is trying to convey, rather than realistically trying to drag the thread to the bottom of the thread list.

>>2
Too bad the best Smalltalk implementation is for children.

At least somebody thought of the children...

>>17
I think about the children quite a bit actually.

>>16
http://4-ch.net/guide/view/participate
Sage (下げ/さげ pronounced: sah-geh) when used exclusively in the Link/Email field will prevent your post from "bumping up" the thread towards the top of the board. This is useful if you're contributing to a thread with something that is of no importance to the rest of the board.

  There is no point using sage when creating a new thread, as all new threads start at the top of the board.

Unlike imageboards, sage is not an insult. Within imageboards, many users can "sage" a thread filling it with enough posts to have it filled, and thus no longer able to reach the front of the board. Since it takes 1000 posts to close a thread in Channel4, this method is futile and you will just clog up a perfectly good thread, which could get your posts deleted, or even get you banned.

>>1 Because making even fundamental types an object slows performance to a halt.  Cocksucker.

>>20
You've done an excellent impression of an idiot Ctard.

>>20
that's a very good indication that you're implementing objects in a very stupid way.

>>22
or that his compiler isn't smart enough to compile objects to primitives.

It's because objects do not gel well with the concept of the von Neumann architecture. The CPU doesn't know what an object is, it only deals with word sized integers and memory I/O.
Actually, the concept of the object is a very bad one, from the point of view of CPU. It's main purpose is to minimize the amount of thinking idiot humans have to do.
Humans can be terrible creatures indeed...

>>20,24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)#Common_Type_system_.28CTS.29
C# has a unified type system. This unified type system is called Common Type System (CTS)^[7]

A unified type system implies that all types, including primitives such as integers, are subclasses of the System.Object class.

http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=vw
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=csharp&lang2=mzscheme

>>25

Yes C# does, and VB.Net treats everything is an object. They then override the default reference semantics of an object with value type semantics for primitives.

This is also why C++ is not an Object Oriented Programming Language. It is a programming language with OOP constructs you can implement. Passing an object by value is not OOP but its the default for C++. You need to implement reference mechanisms everywhere yourself. C++ is not oriented twords objects, it just makes them availble for you to implement yourself.

>>24

What a surprise, a fucking idiot on this board who thinks he knows more than he does. OOP is an organization concept for high level code. CPUs don't understand high level code to begin with. They don't even understand assembly code (the CPU does not contain instructions to execute your arbitrary macros, and it doesn't inherently understand the string of characters in the mnemonics).

When you compile/assemble your code it takes your organizational constructs and reorganizes them in to the instruction set of the CPU.

>>26
yhbt

>>27
Knock it off. Trolling has more to it than writing bullshit.

>>28
Yup, it's writing bullshit that someone will respond to. Face it, YHBT.

>>28
Yup, it's writing bullshit that someone will respond to. Face it, YHBT.