rewari@osu-eddie.UUCP (05/29/87)
From: Pawan Rewari <rewari> I still don't know why SmallTalk is called SmallTalk. Got to give a talk next week. Any enlightenment ? .....ignorance is blissful.
alfke@cit-vax.UUCP (05/29/87)
Well, Smalltalk (the 't' isn't capitalized) was originally ('71?) going to
be the language running on the Dynabook, a hypothetical non-threatening
computer to be used by anyone, especially children. Think of it as a
notebook-sized proto-Macintosh. So they chose Smalltalk (= chit-chat) as
a non-threatening name for a language, as opposed to imposing walls of
uppercase like COBOL or PL/I or FORTRAN or ...
In general, I highly approve of Xerox's history (perhaps mostly internal)
of using real words instead of acronyms. Smalltalk, Star, Mesa, Dorado,
Dolphin, Tajo, Cedar ... file and mail servers on Xerox's network also
have real names.
--
pEtEr AlfkE
I'm going to have to torture you now, @
but I want you to know cSVAx
it isn't personal. .cAlTEch.EDUrgatkinson@watmum.UUCP (05/29/87)
In article <3627@osu-eddie.UUCP> rewari@osu-eddie.UUCP writes: >From: Pawan Rewari <rewari> > > I still don't know why SmallTalk is called SmallTalk. Small point: It's Smalltalk, not SmallTalk. I still don't know the actual origins, other than the fact that it is a small ("simple") language. The original design goals (from Smalltalk '72) also included designing a language that small people (read children) could use. But I am only surmizing. -bob atkinson