4 ms·

Where does the name Objective-Smalltalk come from? Isn't that a bit of a pleonasm? (about to watch the video, maybe it is addressed in there) Anyway, very curi

Where does the name Objective-Smalltalk come from? Isn't that a bit of a pleonasm? (about to watch the video, maybe it is addressed in there) Anyway, very curious about this! EDIT: first slide: it's because of its relation to Objective-C. Still a funny pleonasm to me though ;)

mpweiher 7y ago
:-) Yes, the name is a part joke...but also part serious: Yes, Objective-C is Smalltalk added to C, so at that level it doesn't really make sense. It does signal that it is very similar to Objective-C, but no longer with "C" as the base and Smalltalk added on top, but instead Smalltalk as the base with some ability to branch "down" to C. So same programming model, different emphasis. That's one part of it. The other part is realising that Brad Cox was after the concept of a Software-IC[1], and dynamic messaging was just one possible IC/Module interconnection mechanism. I like the description of Objective-C as "COM with language support". Objective-Smalltalk extends what the "Objective" part means to cover pretty much any sort of architectural connector, in order to avoid architectural mismatch caused by our implementation mechanisms not matching the structure of the systems we want to build. [1] https://blog.metaobject.com/2019/03/software-ics-binary-compatibility-and.html https://blog.metaobject.com/2019/03/software-ics-binary-comp...
- ci5er 7y ago
  This reminds me of the General Magic / Kaleida / Taligent /Pink stuff being sorta/kinda done by Apple in the late 80s (early 90s? Both?). There were agents and software ICs and messaging in the air! (I don't know why, because interconnect in-system and out-system all more-or-less sucked). Like Xanadu, this was all kind of "ahead of its time" stuff, and I've never understood why it wasn't resurrected in simpler form since (yet). What are you trying to ultimately accomplish here? It all appears quite elegant, but I'm not sure I can infer the end-game of the project or enterprise. EDIT: Forgive me. I'm running on time-lagged batteries, and I suspect that you suggest more than I am picking up on...
  - mpweiher 7y ago
    The endgame is I want to change programming. It's been too sucky for too long. Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for? Quite frankly I'd be happy if someone else were to do it, but since nobody stepped up I reluctantly started (a) figuring out what was wrong and (b) fixing it.
    - vanderZwan 7y ago
      So I have finally watched the video, read the accompanying blog post and then the "Storage Combinators" paper. All I an say is: you have a new RSS subscriber to your blog. Have you considered showcasing Objective-Smalltalk on lobste.rs and /r/programminglanguages? [0] https://lobste.rs/ https://lobste.rs/ [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/programminglanguages https://old.reddit.com/r/programminglanguages
  - GeekyBear 7y ago
    Google's Fuchsia derives in part from Pink mixed with concepts from iPhone. >Fuchsia is an open source capability-based operating system currently being developed by Google. The source documentation describes the reasoning behind the name as "Pink + Purple == Fuchsia (a new Operating System)", which is a reference to Pink (Apple's first effort at a object-oriented, microkernel based operating system), and Purple (the original iPhone's codename) https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia

mpweiher 7y ago

:-) Yes, the name is a part joke...but also part serious: Yes, Objective-C is Smalltalk added to C, so at that level it doesn't really make sense. It does signal that it is very similar to Objective-C, but no longer with "C" as the base and Smalltalk added on top, but instead Smalltalk as the base with some ability to branch "down" to C. So same programming model, different emphasis. That's one part of it. The other part is realising that Brad Cox was after the concept of a Software-IC[1], and dynamic messaging was just one possible IC/Module interconnection mechanism. I like the description of Objective-C as "COM with language support". Objective-Smalltalk extends what the "Objective" part means to cover pretty much any sort of architectural connector, in order to avoid architectural mismatch caused by our implementation mechanisms not matching the structure of the systems we want to build. [1] https://blog.metaobject.com/2019/03/software-ics-binary-compatibility-and.html https://blog.metaobject.com/2019/03/software-ics-binary-comp...

ci5er 7y ago
This reminds me of the General Magic / Kaleida / Taligent /Pink stuff being sorta/kinda done by Apple in the late 80s (early 90s? Both?). There were agents and software ICs and messaging in the air! (I don't know why, because interconnect in-system and out-system all more-or-less sucked). Like Xanadu, this was all kind of "ahead of its time" stuff, and I've never understood why it wasn't resurrected in simpler form since (yet). What are you trying to ultimately accomplish here? It all appears quite elegant, but I'm not sure I can infer the end-game of the project or enterprise. EDIT: Forgive me. I'm running on time-lagged batteries, and I suspect that you suggest more than I am picking up on...
- mpweiher 7y ago
  The endgame is I want to change programming. It's been too sucky for too long. Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for? Quite frankly I'd be happy if someone else were to do it, but since nobody stepped up I reluctantly started (a) figuring out what was wrong and (b) fixing it.
  - vanderZwan 7y ago
    So I have finally watched the video, read the accompanying blog post and then the "Storage Combinators" paper. All I an say is: you have a new RSS subscriber to your blog. Have you considered showcasing Objective-Smalltalk on lobste.rs and /r/programminglanguages? [0] https://lobste.rs/ https://lobste.rs/ [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/programminglanguages https://old.reddit.com/r/programminglanguages
- GeekyBear 7y ago
  Google's Fuchsia derives in part from Pink mixed with concepts from iPhone. >Fuchsia is an open source capability-based operating system currently being developed by Google. The source documentation describes the reasoning behind the name as "Pink + Purple == Fuchsia (a new Operating System)", which is a reference to Pink (Apple's first effort at a object-oriented, microkernel based operating system), and Purple (the original iPhone's codename) https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fuchsia