smalltalk

I see a lot of IoC frameworks for .Net and Java. Does anyone know why there are no equivalent frameworks for Smalltalk. This is more a philosophy question than anything else. I'm wondering if there is something in the Smalltalk way of doing things that precludes the necessity of having an IoC framework. MVC was invented on Smalltalk and is arguably the original Inversion of Control framework. While somewhat more lightweight than its java counterparts, it has the basic concepts of a model holding the data, a view rendering the data in response to events propogated from a controller. Less

Lots of languages have microframeworks for writing very tiny websites or web services, such as Flask for Python, or Sinatra for Ruby. On Squeak, there doesn't seem to be any equivalent; Iliad, Seaside, and AIDA are all very heavy for just having a little service. What's the preferred way to accomplish this? Directly injecting a hanlder into Comanche or Swazoo? Sebastian N. I would like to share what I think is more up-to-date information (as of end of 2012). Zinc Components Currently in Pharo 1.4/2.0 the de-facto standard for HTTP client/server seems to be the Zinc HTTP Components . And the

Closed . This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers. Learn more . Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post . Currently I am learning Smalltalk. I do this because I want to learn as much as I can in one week about a new programming language in order to improve my skills. Next week I will try something else. So far I am able to read Smalltalk code but I have a very limited experience in writing. Can you recommend me any small size project that will help me understand better this language in a

I'm new to smalltalk and I'm impressed with the fact that there are only just 6 keywords in the language (self, super, true, false, nil & thisContext), and how pure it is in having almost everything as message passing, eg. looping using whileTrue, if/else using ifTrue, etc ... which are way different from what I'm used to in other languages. Yet, there are cases where I just cannot make sense of how message passing really fit in, these include: the assignment operator := the cascading operator ; the period operator . the way to create a set #( ... ) These aren't message passing, right? As you

可以将文章内容翻译成中文,广告屏蔽插件可能会导致该功能失效(如失效，请关闭广告屏蔽插件后再试): 问题: I cannot understand this piece of Smalltalk code: [(line := self upTo: Character cr) size = 0] whileTrue. Can anybody help explain it? 回答1: One easy thing to do, if you have the image where the code came from, is run a debugger on it and step through. If you came across the code out of context, like a mailing list post, then you could browse implementers of one of the messages and see what it does. For example, #size and #whileTrue are pretty standard, so we'll skip those for now, but #upTo: sounds interesting. It reminds me of the stream

可以将文章内容翻译成中文,广告屏蔽插件可能会导致该功能失效(如失效，请关闭广告屏蔽插件后再试): 由 翻译 强力驱动 问题: To me it seems the main point of Seaside is that it is more like normal "desktop" programming. The control flow looks much more like "traditional" programming instead of "web" programming. Is that a correct impression? I know it's about Web programming but it's does not looks like it from the programmers side. It looks much more than driving "desktop" applications. Does this clarify the question a bit? 回答1: Your impression is correct. Seaside is designed for what I call a tree-like control flow, as desktop GUI apps have. Comparing