3 ms·
> The image-based paradigm [1] holds it back. Using Smalltalk, there's quite a change in development style, the existing development tools (text editors, versio
by flukus 8y ago
> The image-based paradigm [1] holds it back. Using Smalltalk, there's quite a change in development style, the existing development tools (text editors, version etc) mostly don't work [2], and deployment is at least slightly different.
It holds it back because it's a bad idea, otherwise Access/VBA apps would rule the world by now. It's a great environment for single developer RAD tools but it's horrible when you're trying to scale the team up because tools like git don't work well and you often don't want data to be shared between instances.
- hboon 8y agogit didn't work with it (maybe it does now). But there has been native version control tools in Smalltalk. There was ENVY, and Squeak and Pharo has Monticello, Dolphin had something (can't remember its name). git is great in many ways, especially how it lets multiple developers to work more effectively on the same code base. But native version control tools on Smalltalk, while they might not work as effectively for large groups of developers, has native support — it can support things like versioning at method level. Rather than arguing Smalltalk is the best or that it is bad, I rather focus on what I think — it has many great features, it's just that it's so different that it can't ever be popular, at least not for the foreseeable future.
- goatlover 8y agoWell git was made for text/file based programming languages. If SmallTalk had taken over instead, we would have the equivalent for image based languages.