Re: Small Talk

Subject: Re: Small Talk
From: "Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 11:37:17 -0800

>Dawn Langley wrote:
>> I need to know how daunting SmallTalk would be to learn for someone with
>> absolutely no programming language experience.
And Mitch Berg answered:
>As luck would have it, I'm doing exactly this. I love SmallTalk...
>If you have NO programming background, but can develop some
>understanding of Object Orientation (more on that later), you may have
>an easier time than someone with someone with _some_ experience in other
>languages. Smalltalk is a "Pure Object" language, which is a big
>concept to digest for someone who's been working in a procedural
>language (like C or COBOL), or even a hybrid Object language (C++,
>Object Pascal).

I found Smalltalk a very easy language to learn because it doesn't
rely an a lot of cryptic symbols like C++ does, so its a lot
easier to "read". And Mitch is right about it being "pure" in its
OO concepts (and therefore a good language to study if you're
interested in getting a handle on OO).

And, BTW - it's Smalltalk. All one word, no internal capitalization.

Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com
-- The _Guide_ is definitive.
Reality is frequently inaccurate.

TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
Search the archives at or search and
browse the archives at

Previous by Author: Re: Management disagreement RE: HTML
Next by Author: Re: Word instead of FrameMaker
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: Small Talk
Next by Thread: Re: Re[2]: Small Talk

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads