| exactly - just for kicks, this was developed at MIT -ellie harmon |
| yes, and it was developed for creating simulations, hence the name -ellie harmon |
| I might just say squeak is one implementation of SmallTalk-80, rather than it is a "revamped" SmallTalk -ellie harmon |
| generally, yes, but its important to note that java is not a pure object-oriented language -ellie harmon |
| to be more specific, both are compiled to byte code -ellie harmon |
| both use a vm -ellie harmon |
| they both use a vm actually -ellie harmon |
| because of the primitives, java isn't completely object-oriented -ellie harmon |
| a true object oriented language -ellie harmon |
| yes, there are objects, and so i understand that you're saying things are "typed" to the extent that at a given time, they can only be an instance of one type object, and hence only understand certain messages. but this is very different than, say java, where every variable, every return value, every method input is specifically typed. in smalltalk (and squeak) you do not declare the type of a variable. you just apply a method to it, and if that method is not supported by that object, then you get a runtime error. so, squeak can be considered essentially typeless in that variables are not typed, only the data they contain is typed - this is silly, but demonstrative: i can say myVariable := 'abc' and then immediately afterwards say myVariable := 1 since myVariable is neither set permanently as a string or a number. similarly return values from methods are not "typed" - you can theoretically return anything you want, something different in different situations. and, inputs to methods are not "typed" either. -ellie harmon |
| i agree, i think the combination of a need for re-useable code and the internet together brought o-o into the mainstream -ellie harmon |
| you know i hadn't heard that before, but i think you're right, here's what i found in a paper on object oriented languages written by someone at uc berkeley: "Smalltalk was redefined from scratch in 1972 on a bet, (that Kay could define the ``most powerful language in the world'' in ``a page of code'') and Smalltalk-72 has since been considered the first "real Smalltalk". Smalltalk was redesigned again in 1976 by Dan Ingalls, and then again in 1980 just before it was released to the public." -ellie harmon |
| see my notes above, some of that esp. #5 doesn't look exactly right -ellie harmon |
| on number 4 I would expect to see something about SmallTalk 80 being released to several companies in the 80's and about C++ and Java Barbara Ericson |