3 ms·

> …the state of the world for Smalltalk 80… Please look at chapter 23,"Smalltalk-80 The Interactive Programming Environment" (system change set, change-managem

by igouy 7y ago

> …the state of the world for Smalltalk 80… Please look at chapter 23,"Smalltalk-80 The Interactive Programming Environment" (system change set, change-management, conflict resolution). > …only Smalltalk VM running on a given system… I remember running side-by-side Smalltalk images on the same system (one with Windows UI look and one with Mac UI look -- so I could tell which was which) in 1994. > …which got in the way of distribution, particularly if you wanted to run on different hardware. Let's say you'd been developing on a Mac and wanted to show on a Windows machine: you simply installed the Windows VM on the Windows machine, and copied your image file (and change log) from the Mac to the Windows machine — done. > …rarely clear where your classes ended, and the system ones began… Prefixing class names was a common way to make it really clear which were your classes.

monocasa 7y ago
You're talking to someone who implemented a Smalltalk 80 VM. >Please look at chapter 23,"Smalltalk-80 The Interactive Programming Environment" (system change set, change-management, conflict resolution). It was still a huge pain in the ass compared to other systems. >I remember running side-by-side Smalltalk images on the same system (one with Windows UI look and one with Mac UI look -- so I could tell which was which) in 1994. So 14 years of Moore's law later, you could run two. My point was directed at the early eighties. Matching the OPs description of ST and first PC. >Let's say you'd been developing on a Mac and wanted to show on a Windows machine: you simply installed the Windows VM on the Windows machine, and copied your image file (and change log) from the Mac to the Windows machine — done. You were heavily encouraged to modify the base image to support different machines in the early eighties. Moving an image from.one hardware watch to another didn't practically work quite a bit of the time. Stuff like the screen resolution was hardcoded into the images, so you'd just be met with a blank or unintelligible screen if you tried. >Prefixing class names was a common way to make it really clear which were your classes. And if you had any dependencies that really broke down.
- igouy 7y ago
  > You're talking to someone who implemented a Smalltalk 80 VM. Do you mean yourself or do you mean thelazydogsback ? > …compared to other systems. Depends which other systems were actually available where you were working. *> So 14 years of Moore's law later…" Wasn't the problem insufficient installed memory?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    >Do you mean yourself or do you mean thelazydogsback ? Myself. >Depends which other systems were actually available where you were working. Diff is from the 70s and by the time Smalltalk existed had been ported to everything under the sun. Having done both I really prefer making text files the canonical copy. >Wasn't the problem insufficient installed memory? For the most part. That's sort of my point, more than a meg was crazy town, and systems went to crazy lengths to accommodate that. Moore's Law applies to memory, there's a transistor on each DRAM bit (and technically a capacitor, but DRAM these days relies on the parasitic capacitance of the transistor, so these days DRAM is just a sea of transistoslrs for the most part).
    - igouy 7y ago
      > Myself. (Genuine question) As "someone who implemented a Smalltalk 80 VM" how much of that effort involved code management in Smalltalk? > Having done both I really prefer making text files the canonical copy. Change sets are saved as text files, the change log is a text file, sources is a text file …?

by igouy 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

You're talking to someone who implemented a Smalltalk 80 VM. >Please look at chapter 23,"Smalltalk-80 The Interactive Programming Environment" (system change set, change-management, conflict resolution). It was still a huge pain in the ass compared to other systems. >I remember running side-by-side Smalltalk images on the same system (one with Windows UI look and one with Mac UI look -- so I could tell which was which) in 1994. So 14 years of Moore's law later, you could run two. My point was directed at the early eighties. Matching the OPs description of ST and first PC. >Let's say you'd been developing on a Mac and wanted to show on a Windows machine: you simply installed the Windows VM on the Windows machine, and copied your image file (and change log) from the Mac to the Windows machine — done. You were heavily encouraged to modify the base image to support different machines in the early eighties. Moving an image from.one hardware watch to another didn't practically work quite a bit of the time. Stuff like the screen resolution was hardcoded into the images, so you'd just be met with a blank or unintelligible screen if you tried. >Prefixing class names was a common way to make it really clear which were your classes. And if you had any dependencies that really broke down.

igouy 7y ago
> You're talking to someone who implemented a Smalltalk 80 VM. Do you mean yourself or do you mean thelazydogsback ? > …compared to other systems. Depends which other systems were actually available where you were working. *> So 14 years of Moore's law later…" Wasn't the problem insufficient installed memory?
- monocasa 7y ago
  >Do you mean yourself or do you mean thelazydogsback ? Myself. >Depends which other systems were actually available where you were working. Diff is from the 70s and by the time Smalltalk existed had been ported to everything under the sun. Having done both I really prefer making text files the canonical copy. >Wasn't the problem insufficient installed memory? For the most part. That's sort of my point, more than a meg was crazy town, and systems went to crazy lengths to accommodate that. Moore's Law applies to memory, there's a transistor on each DRAM bit (and technically a capacitor, but DRAM these days relies on the parasitic capacitance of the transistor, so these days DRAM is just a sea of transistoslrs for the most part).
  - igouy 7y ago
    > Myself. (Genuine question) As "someone who implemented a Smalltalk 80 VM" how much of that effort involved code management in Smalltalk? > Having done both I really prefer making text files the canonical copy. Change sets are saved as text files, the change log is a text file, sources is a text file …?