[Tfug] Language choices

[Robert Hunter]

Tim, interesting ideas, once again.

>
> This is the thing about
>     x<1 IfTrue: [ do something ]
>           ifFalse: [do something ]
> that I find appealing.  You don't have to add "if..else..then..elseif" to
> your syntax. The only syntax we have here is:
>     object message
>     object message: parameter

Personally, I don't find anything innovative about burying conditional
execution semantics for the purpose of streamlining the language syntax.
Since you seem to have a different opinion, I think you might find
declarative languages to your liking.  Look up Prolog, for example. 
Personally, I could never get the hang of it.


> this looks funny the first time you see it, but not nearly as weird as
> "DIM
> A as CHAR[100]", or "for(int i = 10; i<50; i++)"

"Wierd" and "funny" are subjective descriptions.  If you have been
programming in a given language for a period of time, you tend to used to
it.

>
> The idea that everything (expressions and variables) are all objects, and
> all programming is sending messages with objects parameters is very
> simple,
> and far-reaching in power.

Can you explain why?  Try to avoid subjective analysis, such as "it
sucks", "or it is cool."  That doesn't communicate anything other than
your personal taste.


In particular, I think that the way Java added "synchronized"
> as a
> special keyword in the language instead of a general mechanism for
> wrapping
> blocks or closures is sick and wrong.

The "synchronized" thing in Java is for dealing with concurrency.  It has
nothing to do with closures.

>
> Of course, a few years ago I wouldn't know any better. :-/\

Imagine where you will be in a few more years ;-)

-- 
Rob