Skip to main content

Smalltalk Challenge: Post 9 - Koans

Besides tinkering with turtles and hashes in Squeak, I secretly went back to GNU Smalltalk and went through some of the Smalltalk Koans. Sssh... don't tell Josh!

Programming koans are a series of failing unit tests that a student reads through and corrects. Each test demonstrates a particular concept in the language. They can be a fun way to review one's understanding of a language, and occasionally learn something new. Here's an of a koan:
testSingleCharacterFromString [
    | string |

    string := 'Smalltalk'.

    self expect: (self fillMeIn) toEqual: (string at: 1).
    self expect: (self fillMeIn) toEqual: (string at: 6).
]
When the test suite is run, it displays:
Do not lose hope.  Expected value should equal actual value.

Expected : FILL ME IN
Actual   : $S  (an instance of Character)

TestString#testSingleCharacterFromString has damaged your karma
(in src/koans/TestString.st)
The name of the method indicates it is possible access the characters that make up a string. The test shows how the at: message is passed to a string to obtain a character at the given index. The programmer must replace (self fillMeIn) with the correct value which will allow the test to pass and the student to proceed.
self expect: $S toEqual: (string at: 1).
self expect: $t toEqual: (string at: 6).
This demonstrates that in Smalltalk character instances are preceded by a dollar-sign, and indexes start at 1, not 0 as in many other languages.

Going through the koans, I thought the ones from TestString.st, TestMessage.st, and TestDictionary.st were exceptionally good. My favorite was this one from TestMessage.st, which demonstrates an unintuitive edge-case resulting from Smalltalk's everything-is-an-object and message passing philosophies.
testMessageCascading [
    | value |

    value := 3 + 2; * 100.  "';' separates each message sent to '3'"

    self expect: (self fillMeIn) toEqual: value.

    "Think about it: we are sending multiple messages to '3'."
]
The correct answer is 300. Pretty evil, eh?

Comments

  1. Hey Timothy, thanks for the write up! Just want to say I recently updated the koans to avoid explicit self on fillMeIn. Now you only have to replace fillMeIn in the tests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're welcome.., and thank you for the time and effort you put in to write some really awesome koans. I look forward to seeing your Squeak koans if/when you get around to them.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Composing Music with PHP

I’m not an expert on probability theory, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. And even my Music 201 class from years ago has been long forgotten. But if you’ll indulge me for the next 10 minutes, I think you’ll find that even just a little knowledge can yield impressive results if creatively woven together. I’d like to share with you how to teach PHP to compose music. Here’s an example: You’re looking at a melody generated by PHP. It’s not the most memorable, but it’s not unpleasant either. And surprisingly, the code to generate such sequences is rather brief. So what’s going on? The script calculates a probability map of melodic intervals and applies a Markov process to generate a new sequence. In friendlier terms, musical data is analyzed by a script to learn which intervals make up pleasing melodies. It then creates a new composition by selecting pitches based on the possibilities it’s observed. . Standing on Shoulders Composition doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Bach wa

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about