4 ms·
> Smalltalk is undoubtedly impressive. Maybe ST80 was what Alan Kay needed. Maybe what the rest-of-us needed was Modular Smalltalk? "An Overview of Modular S
by igouy 6y ago
> Smalltalk is undoubtedly impressive.
Maybe ST80 was what Alan Kay needed.
Maybe what the rest-of-us needed was Modular Smalltalk?
"An Overview of Modular Smalltalk"
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=An+Overview+of+Modular+Smalltalk&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=An+O...
- Rochus 6y agoActually Smalltalk-72 seems to better reflect Kay's vision of "object-oriented" than Smalltalk-80; see e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386335 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386335. Using tools like ENVY or Objectory you could do decent work in ST. Nevertheless, I switched to other languages like C++ and Java.
- igouy 6y ago> Using tools like ENVY… As many of us did. What I had not previously considered was how the novelty of gui software and the vision may have overwhelmed more mundane concerns. Seems like — even with the image, even with the ST80 language — there could have been a coarse separation into layers of functionality, and that would have been enough to address some of the practical concerns. But that was mundane, not fun.
- Rochus 6y agoThere were namespaces (aka environments).
- igouy 6y agoMy speculation was what it might have been like if PARC ST80 had a coarse separation into layers of functionality before release to the world. If PARC ST80 had provided both: no-gui no-ide boostrapped image + libs :and: bootstrapped image + libs + gui :and: bootstrapped image + libs + gui + tools :as separate images.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]