5 ms·

Smalltalk is the product of a very well funded research lab - Xerox PARC. It was not so much a successful product. It's less interesting about think what Apple

by lispm 8y ago

Smalltalk is the product of a very well funded research lab - Xerox PARC. It was not so much a successful product. It's less interesting about think what Apple did with it - because they had other, more conventional, goals in the end of the day. I think it's more interesting to think what happened at Xerox - why didn't they get it out to millions of people as the software a computer boots into or as the primary development environment. Or even as a system design philosophy? Xerox sold expensive systems like a few Smalltalk machines, but much more they sold office systems on the same hardware NOT implemented in Smalltalk. IIRC they might have sold larger laser printers with Smalltalk-based control software - can't remember. Xerox gave Smalltalk 80 to a few companies - like Apple and others. Apple ported it to their machines - this is also the origin of Squeak (a later open source Smalltalk). But it never really caught on. Even though Apple gave developers access to it. Now the philosophy of Smalltalk was already in the Apple ][. It booted into a BASIC prompt. But later computers were more universal and current incarnations are only seen as appliances. Nobody needs to program to use an iOS device. On a Lisp Machine one can force any application into a REPL (called listener) at any time. The keyboard even has a key for that. Live programmability is the main purpose of such a computer. Source is only a keystroke/mouse click away. We don't have that anymore and there must be a reason for it. Probably it would also be a security nightmare in current networked surroundings...

simonh 8y ago
The reason Smalltalk didn’t take over the world was it was so resource intensive. A single workstation would have cost about $40,000. There’s no way the early Macs could have run Smalltalk, they only became capable of that years later and it was slow as molasses. I suppose it should really have had a chance by the Java era, but C style syntax languages ruled the world and the state of the art had moved on by then.
- rjsw 8y ago
  A Mac Plus could run Smalltalk.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Yes, but crawling.
    - lispm 8y ago
      That was not unusual for a Mac plus.
- lispm 8y ago
  Apple ran Smalltalk 80 on the Lisa, Mac Plus, Mac II and a small version on the Mac 512k. A Mac II or IIfx would probably be faster than a Xerox system - which generally were not very powerful.
  - pinewurst 8y ago
    ParcPlace Systems was shipping fast, production-grade Smalltalk-80 on the Mac II with JIT compilation (PS and HPS VMs) in 1988. It was certainly faster than cruddy D-machines (other than Dorado of course) and their final Xerox successors.
- ksec 8y ago
  But would it take over the world today? Our latest smartphone properly have 10x to 100x the processor power of the "$40,000" Workstation back then. I am not entirely sure if Smalltalk was the right approach, most people, the 98% who don't read HN don't want to code. I think Hypercard is a much closer to that vision but it doesn't seems there are massive interest for something like that either, The world today is like 90% consumption, people consume news, media, video etc.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Given thing today where a hero jpeg is bigger than most Smalltalk’s VM images, it would be fine. The problem is we are in a Unix / Windows world and getting popular now is a lot harder.
  - scroot 8y ago
    > it doesn't seems there are massive interest for something like that either It's been a long enough time that most people don't even know that "Hypercard like things" are even possible, or what they mean, or how one could use them. The "appification" of personal computing has ensured that there are "programmers" and "users" (scribes and plebs) and that the relationship will be transactional and commercial. > he world today is like 90% consumption, people consume news, media, video etc. The more the development community realizes this, the better off we will be -- because it will become clear that in a technical sense a completely different way (ie the direction of Smalltalk or Hypercard) is possible and that the truly limiting factors are cultural more than anything else.
- igouy 8y ago
  July 11, 1988 — "Digitalk to Ship Mac Version of Smalltalk: … will run on Mac Plus, Mac SE, or Mac II and will require 1 megabyte of memory." https://books.google.com/books?id=5T4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA3 https://books.google.com/books?id=5T4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA3 > I suppose it should really have had a chance by the Java era … pdf "Ubiquitous Applications: Embedded Systems to Mainframes" http://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf http://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf
BaronSamedi 8y ago
In his classic, must-read article, "Worse is Better", Richard Gabriel explains why. The victory of the C ecosystems has had a profound impact on computing. One small example is that it produced the need for scripting languages like Perl and Python. The Lisp and SmallTalk based systems had no such need. Also, I think the author somewhat misses the point with his emphasis on end-user programming. The pioneers of the late 1960s and the 1970s saw the computer as a means to elevate and enhance human abilities. The computer would be an intelligent collaborator; teaching us, helping us think more clearly and more creatively, helping us communicate, and so on. Programming was the means not the end. Imagine, for instance, running R and it actively helps you clean, organize, explore, and analyze your data (with the knowledge of a master statistician) instead of just sitting there passively waiting for you to type some cryptic commands. It is this original vision that, sadly, has not survived.
lalalandland 8y ago
I really like using Smalltalk (Squeak) for personal programming and small projects. It's very reflective and it is easy once you know the tools to learn more about how the system works and how to do stuff. I have not found any similar systems anywhere. I can inspect and browse the source code for the whole system and I really enjoy it. These functions are opposite of what most other systems let you do. They want to be an app like entity that fills a function without you either wanting to know how it works or being able to know how it works.
parasubvert 8y ago
Smalltalk had a successful niche as server software running complex business domains, eg. oceanic container shipping & routing, and power grid billing. Its legacy is fading, but continues. The old GemStone/S object database still lives on to this day: https://gemtalksystems.com https://gemtalksystems.com
coldtea 8y ago
>Xerox gave Smalltalk 80 to a few companies - like Apple and others. Apple ported it to their machines - this is also the origin of Squeak (a later open source Smalltalk). But it never really caught on. Even though Apple gave developers access to it. Well, it's not like Lisp ever really caught on either...
- lispm 8y ago
  At least Apple had Lisp as a real developer product with an internal team developing it for a few years. https://www.scribd.com/document/45488252/Macintosh-Common-Lisp-Reference-for-Version-2-0 https://www.scribd.com/document/45488252/Macintosh-Common-Li...

by lispm 8y ago

simonh 8y ago

The reason Smalltalk didn’t take over the world was it was so resource intensive. A single workstation would have cost about $40,000. There’s no way the early Macs could have run Smalltalk, they only became capable of that years later and it was slow as molasses. I suppose it should really have had a chance by the Java era, but C style syntax languages ruled the world and the state of the art had moved on by then.

rjsw 8y ago
A Mac Plus could run Smalltalk.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Yes, but crawling.
  - lispm 8y ago
    That was not unusual for a Mac plus.
lispm 8y ago
Apple ran Smalltalk 80 on the Lisa, Mac Plus, Mac II and a small version on the Mac 512k. A Mac II or IIfx would probably be faster than a Xerox system - which generally were not very powerful.
- pinewurst 8y ago
  ParcPlace Systems was shipping fast, production-grade Smalltalk-80 on the Mac II with JIT compilation (PS and HPS VMs) in 1988. It was certainly faster than cruddy D-machines (other than Dorado of course) and their final Xerox successors.
ksec 8y ago
But would it take over the world today? Our latest smartphone properly have 10x to 100x the processor power of the "$40,000" Workstation back then. I am not entirely sure if Smalltalk was the right approach, most people, the 98% who don't read HN don't want to code. I think Hypercard is a much closer to that vision but it doesn't seems there are massive interest for something like that either, The world today is like 90% consumption, people consume news, media, video etc.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Given thing today where a hero jpeg is bigger than most Smalltalk’s VM images, it would be fine. The problem is we are in a Unix / Windows world and getting popular now is a lot harder.
- scroot 8y ago
  > it doesn't seems there are massive interest for something like that either It's been a long enough time that most people don't even know that "Hypercard like things" are even possible, or what they mean, or how one could use them. The "appification" of personal computing has ensured that there are "programmers" and "users" (scribes and plebs) and that the relationship will be transactional and commercial. > he world today is like 90% consumption, people consume news, media, video etc. The more the development community realizes this, the better off we will be -- because it will become clear that in a technical sense a completely different way (ie the direction of Smalltalk or Hypercard) is possible and that the truly limiting factors are cultural more than anything else.
igouy 8y ago
July 11, 1988 — "Digitalk to Ship Mac Version of Smalltalk: … will run on Mac Plus, Mac SE, or Mac II and will require 1 megabyte of memory." https://books.google.com/books?id=5T4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA3 https://books.google.com/books?id=5T4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA3 > I suppose it should really have had a chance by the Java era … pdf "Ubiquitous Applications: Embedded Systems to Mainframes" http://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf http://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf

BaronSamedi 8y ago

In his classic, must-read article, "Worse is Better", Richard Gabriel explains why. The victory of the C ecosystems has had a profound impact on computing. One small example is that it produced the need for scripting languages like Perl and Python. The Lisp and SmallTalk based systems had no such need. Also, I think the author somewhat misses the point with his emphasis on end-user programming. The pioneers of the late 1960s and the 1970s saw the computer as a means to elevate and enhance human abilities. The computer would be an intelligent collaborator; teaching us, helping us think more clearly and more creatively, helping us communicate, and so on. Programming was the means not the end. Imagine, for instance, running R and it actively helps you clean, organize, explore, and analyze your data (with the knowledge of a master statistician) instead of just sitting there passively waiting for you to type some cryptic commands. It is this original vision that, sadly, has not survived.

lalalandland 8y ago

I really like using Smalltalk (Squeak) for personal programming and small projects. It's very reflective and it is easy once you know the tools to learn more about how the system works and how to do stuff. I have not found any similar systems anywhere. I can inspect and browse the source code for the whole system and I really enjoy it. These functions are opposite of what most other systems let you do. They want to be an app like entity that fills a function without you either wanting to know how it works or being able to know how it works.

parasubvert 8y ago

Smalltalk had a successful niche as server software running complex business domains, eg. oceanic container shipping & routing, and power grid billing. Its legacy is fading, but continues. The old GemStone/S object database still lives on to this day: https://gemtalksystems.com https://gemtalksystems.com

coldtea 8y ago

>Xerox gave Smalltalk 80 to a few companies - like Apple and others. Apple ported it to their machines - this is also the origin of Squeak (a later open source Smalltalk). But it never really caught on. Even though Apple gave developers access to it. Well, it's not like Lisp ever really caught on either...

lispm 8y ago
At least Apple had Lisp as a real developer product with an internal team developing it for a few years. https://www.scribd.com/document/45488252/Macintosh-Common-Lisp-Reference-for-Version-2-0 https://www.scribd.com/document/45488252/Macintosh-Common-Li...