5 ms·

I'm not a big fan of the Smalltalk language, but I think Smalltalk's greatest contribution to development was putting forward the idea that development environm

I'm not a big fan of the Smalltalk language, but I think Smalltalk's greatest contribution to development was putting forward the idea that development environments are important for productivity.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Actually, Lisp did that first (as did Emacs). But yes, ST popularized the idea (which is somewhat paradoxical, as, like Lisp, ST never actually caught on).
- pjmlp 10y ago
  You have to thank Sun and Java for it. Enterprise was adopting Smalltalk when Java came out. Even Eclipse was actually Visual Age for Smalltalk refurbished.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    You're not wrong, but I read that as 'thank': had it not been for Sun & Java, then maybe — just maybe — the development industry would have advanced beyond the 1960s/early 1970s. Can you imagine if the standard language of enterprise development today were Smalltalk? Can you imagine if the standard language of the Web were Lisp (or Scheme)? Can you imagine if we'd sunk all the work into making Lisp & Smalltalk great that we instead sunk into making Java & JavaScript not so terrible that they cause spontaneous seppuku?
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Yes because I used Smalltalk and Oberon (influenced by Mesa/Cedar), and although not directly related RAD tooling like Delphi and C++ Builder. Which is why after my initial enchantment with UNIX, I grew tired of using a graphical workstation to manage xterms.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        I still like terminals, mostly out of necessity. Terminals are effectively guaranteed to be there when all else fails: whether that be due to a misconfigured computer, or to a slow connection that means that you're using SSH only, or because you're stuck using a rubbish chromebook linked to your Real Computer back home via SSH (which happens to me a lot). So while I admire things like acme and smalltalk, my personal philosophy, partly for flexability, and partly out of necessity, is that if you can't run within a terminal window, I can't depend on you, or integrate you too heavily into my workflow. Because when I need you most, you'll let me down. This is the second reason I hate most IDEs, by the way. The first reason is that most IDEs believe that if your language is verbose, the solution is more automated code generation. I believe that if most of your code is being generated automatically, you need a new programming language. Naturally, the Smalltalk IDE gets a pass, because it's not an IDE in the common sense. It's more like a real-time introspective debugging environment which you happen to write all your code in. It's not even technically required for the language, as GST aptly demonstrates. But the first time you use the smalltalk debugger, you'll be sold on it. You'll want it thr smalltalk IDE in every language. Sadly, this isn't possible, unless you're a lisp programmer with either A) a lot of money or B) a lot of spare time on your hands, you can't have it.
        kazinator 10y ago
        Once upon a time, for a time, I had no computer at all. WYSE-50 amber CRT terminal (public library discard), hooked up to a 14.4kbps modem and a land line for contract work.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        ...seems reasonable.
    - nobleach 10y ago
      If I'm not mistaken, Brendan Eich wanted Scheme to be the language of the browser. We ended up with JavaScript because Netscape pushed the whole "make it look like Java" agenda. We still got first-class functions out of it. But we also inherited a direct port of Java's Date class. *Edit Netscape, not Sun
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        Netscape
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      Can you imagine if the standard language of enterprise development today were Smalltalk? That would've meant that TDD would've had to have been de rigeur. So likely, this would've been an alternative universe where Extreme Programming got created earlier to overcome some of the weaknesses of Smalltalk as an enterprise language. It would also have helped if some of the internecine fighting between Smalltalk companies (and parts of merged Smalltalk companies) didn't happen. Also, this would have required an ANSI standard for Smalltalk that wasn't manipulated by big companies into something toothless and hazy. This would've helped to create a more cohesive greater language community outside of individual implementations. Because of the toothless standard, combined with the ease of rolling your own, the Smalltalk community balkanized itself into different incompatible dialects. Can you imagine if the standard language of the Web were Lisp (or Scheme)? There would have been, possibly, a true "write once run everywhere" environment. Squeak demonstrates the feasibility of this. The thing runs with a bit identical virtual machine model on something like a hundred different platforms. However, there would have been a serious rash of network security problems. Because it's hard to prove things in Smalltalk, the preferred model for web app security was signed code, which is far from a panacea. There were some people thinking about sandbox schemes, including myself, but Smalltalk VMs are also generally prone to the same kinds of security holes as other VMs, like Dalvik. Can you imagine if we'd sunk all the work into making Lisp & Smalltalk great that we instead sunk into making Java & JavaScript not so terrible that they cause spontaneous seppuku? Actually, Sun approached ParcPlace -- or whichever was the "original" Smalltalk company at the time -- and asked to use their VM for their set top box project. The Smalltalkers rebuffed them, so they went on to create their own VM. This Java was born. Smalltalk was almost Java, and missed its chance many times over, mainly because of culture. Smalltalk could've been LightTable decades earlier, if we'd only had faster hardware, the internet with something like YouTube, and a better community attitude towards outreach.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      JS doesn't cause spontaneous seppuku. For all it got wrong, there's a surprising amount it got right. Like lexical closures, lambdas, and OO (mostly). You know, the big stuff. OTOH, Java makes me want to stab myself repeatedly. It's literally less pleasant than assembler. It's object-oriented COBOL with a pretty face.
  - nobleach 10y ago
    Eclipse NOT built in Java may actually have been a good thing. I'd love to see that.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Basically the whole workspace concept or how Netbeans used to mount directory into projects feels like it was a mechanism to replicate the image concept using files.
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        ...Which explains why I hate workspaces in Eclipse so much Files work. Images work. Trying to emulate one inside the other really doesn't.
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      The Visual Age IDEs were darn good, before they got turned into Eclipse, and widely recognized for that.

I'm not a big fan of the Smalltalk language, but I think Smalltalk's greatest contribution to development was putting forward the idea that development environments are important for productivity.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

Actually, Lisp did that first (as did Emacs). But yes, ST popularized the idea (which is somewhat paradoxical, as, like Lisp, ST never actually caught on).

pjmlp 10y ago
You have to thank Sun and Java for it. Enterprise was adopting Smalltalk when Java came out. Even Eclipse was actually Visual Age for Smalltalk refurbished.
- zeveb 10y ago
  You're not wrong, but I read that as 'thank': had it not been for Sun & Java, then maybe — just maybe — the development industry would have advanced beyond the 1960s/early 1970s. Can you imagine if the standard language of enterprise development today were Smalltalk? Can you imagine if the standard language of the Web were Lisp (or Scheme)? Can you imagine if we'd sunk all the work into making Lisp & Smalltalk great that we instead sunk into making Java & JavaScript not so terrible that they cause spontaneous seppuku?
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Yes because I used Smalltalk and Oberon (influenced by Mesa/Cedar), and although not directly related RAD tooling like Delphi and C++ Builder. Which is why after my initial enchantment with UNIX, I grew tired of using a graphical workstation to manage xterms.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      I still like terminals, mostly out of necessity. Terminals are effectively guaranteed to be there when all else fails: whether that be due to a misconfigured computer, or to a slow connection that means that you're using SSH only, or because you're stuck using a rubbish chromebook linked to your Real Computer back home via SSH (which happens to me a lot). So while I admire things like acme and smalltalk, my personal philosophy, partly for flexability, and partly out of necessity, is that if you can't run within a terminal window, I can't depend on you, or integrate you too heavily into my workflow. Because when I need you most, you'll let me down. This is the second reason I hate most IDEs, by the way. The first reason is that most IDEs believe that if your language is verbose, the solution is more automated code generation. I believe that if most of your code is being generated automatically, you need a new programming language. Naturally, the Smalltalk IDE gets a pass, because it's not an IDE in the common sense. It's more like a real-time introspective debugging environment which you happen to write all your code in. It's not even technically required for the language, as GST aptly demonstrates. But the first time you use the smalltalk debugger, you'll be sold on it. You'll want it thr smalltalk IDE in every language. Sadly, this isn't possible, unless you're a lisp programmer with either A) a lot of money or B) a lot of spare time on your hands, you can't have it.
      - kazinator 10y ago
        Once upon a time, for a time, I had no computer at all. WYSE-50 amber CRT terminal (public library discard), hooked up to a 14.4kbps modem and a land line for contract work.
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        ...seems reasonable.
  - nobleach 10y ago
    If I'm not mistaken, Brendan Eich wanted Scheme to be the language of the browser. We ended up with JavaScript because Netscape pushed the whole "make it look like Java" agenda. We still got first-class functions out of it. But we also inherited a direct port of Java's Date class. *Edit Netscape, not Sun
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Netscape
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    Can you imagine if the standard language of enterprise development today were Smalltalk? That would've meant that TDD would've had to have been de rigeur. So likely, this would've been an alternative universe where Extreme Programming got created earlier to overcome some of the weaknesses of Smalltalk as an enterprise language. It would also have helped if some of the internecine fighting between Smalltalk companies (and parts of merged Smalltalk companies) didn't happen. Also, this would have required an ANSI standard for Smalltalk that wasn't manipulated by big companies into something toothless and hazy. This would've helped to create a more cohesive greater language community outside of individual implementations. Because of the toothless standard, combined with the ease of rolling your own, the Smalltalk community balkanized itself into different incompatible dialects. Can you imagine if the standard language of the Web were Lisp (or Scheme)? There would have been, possibly, a true "write once run everywhere" environment. Squeak demonstrates the feasibility of this. The thing runs with a bit identical virtual machine model on something like a hundred different platforms. However, there would have been a serious rash of network security problems. Because it's hard to prove things in Smalltalk, the preferred model for web app security was signed code, which is far from a panacea. There were some people thinking about sandbox schemes, including myself, but Smalltalk VMs are also generally prone to the same kinds of security holes as other VMs, like Dalvik. Can you imagine if we'd sunk all the work into making Lisp & Smalltalk great that we instead sunk into making Java & JavaScript not so terrible that they cause spontaneous seppuku? Actually, Sun approached ParcPlace -- or whichever was the "original" Smalltalk company at the time -- and asked to use their VM for their set top box project. The Smalltalkers rebuffed them, so they went on to create their own VM. This Java was born. Smalltalk was almost Java, and missed its chance many times over, mainly because of culture. Smalltalk could've been LightTable decades earlier, if we'd only had faster hardware, the internet with something like YouTube, and a better community attitude towards outreach.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    JS doesn't cause spontaneous seppuku. For all it got wrong, there's a surprising amount it got right. Like lexical closures, lambdas, and OO (mostly). You know, the big stuff. OTOH, Java makes me want to stab myself repeatedly. It's literally less pleasant than assembler. It's object-oriented COBOL with a pretty face.
- nobleach 10y ago
  Eclipse NOT built in Java may actually have been a good thing. I'd love to see that.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Basically the whole workspace concept or how Netbeans used to mount directory into projects feels like it was a mechanism to replicate the image concept using files.
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      ...Which explains why I hate workspaces in Eclipse so much Files work. Images work. Trying to emulate one inside the other really doesn't.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    The Visual Age IDEs were darn good, before they got turned into Eclipse, and widely recognized for that.