Hacker News Reader

IDK I think it's still worth considering where certain languages 'got the right things right together' to be constructive...

That said as someone fairly unfamiliar with Smalltalk I'd like an example of what other parts of Smalltalk play well with it's OOP Sauce...

View on HN

For me, one of the examples was control flow. Smalltalk had none. Or, rather, it had one: send a message to an object/receiver. It was cool that ifTrue:ifFalse: was just a message you sent to a Boolean with a closure (or two) as an argument. And various iterations as well, so you could write your own. This you can do in Swift/Kotlin/etc as well of course. Where Snalltalk went next level was that closures were objects to. And you got them to run with messages like value/value:/value:value:, etc. In most languages with anon functions/closure, you just use argument list (i.e. parens) to invoke it. But you can’t send messages to the closure itself. Smalltalk had a host of introspection methods you could send to it, different flavors of evaluation, and of course any of the ones it inherited from Object. But where it got really cool (imo), was that you could add your own methods to BlockClosure. So you could implement all kinds of control messages on anonymous functions yourself. This was cool, it was all objects, all the way down. Where “object” meant things you can add behavior to, and send messages to.

To expand a bit on why this is cool: it lets you introduce new abstractions (for example wrapping some code in a database transaction or specialised exception handling) on an equal footing with the rest of the language, all without macros.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com