4 ms·
There is a lot that I like about Smalltalk. I think one of the most interesting ideas is that everything in the environment is written in the same language; tha
by cmiles74 8y ago
There is a lot that I like about Smalltalk. I think one of the most interesting ideas is that everything in the environment is written in the same language; that it's easy to use code from an installed package when you write your own code. I also like the idea that it provides its own GUI environment and IDE, making it easy to interact with and change the way things work.
I don't see myself spending more time working with Smalltalk, as it stands today. It's single threaded, which is fine for a lot of tasks but is (in my opinion) a poor fit for a GUI environment. Having looked around at projects like Pharo, it looks like the Smalltalk community may be moving away from the idea of Smalltalk presenting the whole environment for the end-user, instead providing one application (often one that presents no UI, i.e. a web application).
From a personal standpoint, I would be very interested in a Smalltalk-like environment that I could use to develop my own software and, hopefully, use to replace a lot of the smaller bits and pieces I use to get my work done. Perhaps it could provide an IDE that I could also use to replace Emacs (which I also use for mail) and an IRC/chat client I could use to replace Weechat (which I also use for Slack, Google Talk and Facebook Messenger).
I don't feel a great affinity for many of the tools I use daily (email, chat, calendar, etc.), in part because they are not easy for me to alter or improve. It's funny: Emacs is clunky and weird, but I stick with it because it's easy for me to add or change the way it works.
I wonder if a Smalltalk implementation that revolved around objects implemented as actors passing messages (as opposed to the direct calling of methods that we have today) would be more amenable to multi-threading, yet still retain the simplicity that Smalltalk enjoys today.