3 ms·

Still relevant today? In 1988, I was briefed by Ibm how they would use Smalltalk with about 10 programmer develop something to ... do not believe them for 1s.

Still relevant today? In 1988, I was briefed by Ibm how they would use Smalltalk with about 10 programmer develop something to ... do not believe them for 1s. What is the business model is then what Microsoft teach the world. It is not technology but the business (the share to the inventor and investor) or later in 1990s (we learn from open sources) the governance and partipation model that rule. Also, it is dynamic and environment base then, how to work in a large team is not that resolve for new firm to use it. Hence once again a 2018 to 1998 me, is this still relevant. I read this btw during my 15min search about this and give up. Like 1988. https://medium.com/@richardeng/mobile-smalltalk-c6f0cc712909 https://medium.com/@richardeng/mobile-smalltalk-c6f0cc712909

em-bee 8y ago
i am struggeling to understand what you are trying to say. could you please elaborate? what is it that you don't believe about IBM? and what is your point about large teams and new firms? here are my thoughts: if you didn't think smalltalk was useful in 1988 then you probably won't feel any different today. i feel today that smalltalk is interesting. in 1988 it would have blown my mind. here is why: today most languages in use fall into two major groups: lower level languages like C and C++ where you do your own memory management, etc. and higher level languages that use some form of runtime and do a lot of work for you. when i was studying in the early 90s, i felt that the latter group of languages were not taken seriously. they were called scripting languages and were more or less only useful for toy programs. (i know that is wrong, but that is what i was led to believe). today these so called toy languages are growing and growing and they are slowly pushing C/C++ and related languages to the side. we get more and new variants of these languages every year. but, and that is the kicker: hardly any of these languages add something that smalltalk (and lisp) didn't already have. we keep reinventing the syntax, but we are not actually changing how we program computers. exceptions are few and far between. additionally, smalltalk (and lisp) achieve the same with a minimalist and thus much easier to learn syntax, so that since learning those two languages, almost all others feel like a step backwards. this is what makes smalltalk relevant today. smalltalk and lisp act like a high-water-mark, as a reminder that most of the languages we are using today don't float our boat any higher than it did 50 years ago.
- gaius 8y ago
  It’s no mystery. In the early-mid 90s IBM was ramping up on Smalltalk believing it to be the language of the future enterprise. In the late 90s they realised that jumping on the Java bandwagon would be more profitable so they ditched Smalltalk almost overnight. The same reason IBM does anything, including Linux.
imglorp 8y ago
I know a guy that worked for IBM writing a large bunch of UI in Smalltalk (80?), desktop of course, on OS/2. He was highly supportive of the productivity and environment, but business concerns pushed them in another direction.
EdwardCoffin 8y ago
As I understand your comment, you are saying: 1) thirty years ago you were given a sales pitch about Smalltalk that you disbelieved 2) You don't know how to make it work with a large team 3) That you gave up reading an article that is written for an audience of Smalltalk programmers on how to handle a particular situation, despite you yourself presumably not being a Smalltalk programmer How is any of this relevant?

em-bee 8y ago

i am struggeling to understand what you are trying to say. could you please elaborate? what is it that you don't believe about IBM? and what is your point about large teams and new firms? here are my thoughts: if you didn't think smalltalk was useful in 1988 then you probably won't feel any different today. i feel today that smalltalk is interesting. in 1988 it would have blown my mind. here is why: today most languages in use fall into two major groups: lower level languages like C and C++ where you do your own memory management, etc. and higher level languages that use some form of runtime and do a lot of work for you. when i was studying in the early 90s, i felt that the latter group of languages were not taken seriously. they were called scripting languages and were more or less only useful for toy programs. (i know that is wrong, but that is what i was led to believe). today these so called toy languages are growing and growing and they are slowly pushing C/C++ and related languages to the side. we get more and new variants of these languages every year. but, and that is the kicker: hardly any of these languages add something that smalltalk (and lisp) didn't already have. we keep reinventing the syntax, but we are not actually changing how we program computers. exceptions are few and far between. additionally, smalltalk (and lisp) achieve the same with a minimalist and thus much easier to learn syntax, so that since learning those two languages, almost all others feel like a step backwards. this is what makes smalltalk relevant today. smalltalk and lisp act like a high-water-mark, as a reminder that most of the languages we are using today don't float our boat any higher than it did 50 years ago.

gaius 8y ago
It’s no mystery. In the early-mid 90s IBM was ramping up on Smalltalk believing it to be the language of the future enterprise. In the late 90s they realised that jumping on the Java bandwagon would be more profitable so they ditched Smalltalk almost overnight. The same reason IBM does anything, including Linux.

imglorp 8y ago

I know a guy that worked for IBM writing a large bunch of UI in Smalltalk (80?), desktop of course, on OS/2. He was highly supportive of the productivity and environment, but business concerns pushed them in another direction.

EdwardCoffin 8y ago

As I understand your comment, you are saying: 1) thirty years ago you were given a sales pitch about Smalltalk that you disbelieved 2) You don't know how to make it work with a large team 3) That you gave up reading an article that is written for an audience of Smalltalk programmers on how to handle a particular situation, despite you yourself presumably not being a Smalltalk programmer How is any of this relevant?