You pick

Post #204,417 by tuberculosis 4/22/05 11:17:14 AM Reply	You pick "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
Post #204,425 by Arkadiy 4/22/05 11:38:46 AM Reply	Well then, I'd nominate Smalltalk And the things that are wrong with it are: - unit tests are needed too much. I love unit testing, but in Smalltalk unit tests are needed for things that a strong-typed language would verify compilation-time. - the language is too tied to its environment. It gives a lot of benefits, but precludes me from using my favorite tools (I am thinking emacs here) - integrated nature of the language/environment makes shipping software a pain. It's extremely hard to be sure that you picked all the changes in your environment that are needed for running your code, and excluded all changes that are there for other projects or simply for your convenience. The most foolproof way seems to be shipping the entire image, after sanitizing it. - the environments still have amazing number of bugs, for such mature tools. - If I really coded more in Smalltalk, I would probably have more complains about the runtime library. As it is, the GUI dev tools are not too kind to custom graphics - standard forms are far better supported. I won't even mention the criptic world of Morph. In any case, if somethiong is missing in the runtime library, it can be easly added by the developer. The language itself draws no critique from me because there is so little of it. Smalltalk has almost no syntax. I would appreciate standard mechanism for decalring accessors the way Ruby does it. But I can live without, or make it up. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #204,475 by JimWeirich 4/22/05 1:05:21 PM Reply	Side note on Unit Testing - unit tests are needed too much. I love unit testing, but in Smalltalk unit tests are needed for things that a strong-typed language would verify compilation-time. Really? I do a fair amount of TDD programming in both Java and Ruby, and I write about the same number of unit tests in either language. -- -- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org [link\|http://onestepback.org\|http://onestepback.org] --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Post #204,476 by admin 4/22/05 1:14:44 PM Reply	Ditto, but s/Ruby/Python Unit testing may point out a few typing failures, but there aren't any more tests required because of it. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #204,485 by tuberculosis 4/22/05 2:06:18 PM Reply	I write more in Smalltalk And the method unit tests are frequently found as a one line comment of the method that you just select and "inspect it" or "debug it". OTOH, I don't do a lot of SUnit testing (should probably do more) because its a drag to go make the subclass and build the methods and write the asserts, etc. One day, there will be some nifty tool that will take these comments and make them into proper SUnit classes. But not today. OTOH, I really like coding in the debugger. "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush

Welcome to IWETHEY!