Re: Small Talk

["Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM>]

>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
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html