3 ms·
Let go of that meme, it's just wrong — https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917420#30939981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917420#30939981 > … progr
by igouy 5y ago
Let go of that meme, it's just wrong —
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917420#30939981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30917420#30939981
> … programs you develop "on it" will not run on anybody else's image.
You seem to have confused the image snapshot with the virtual machine.
As-if .class files were the JVM.
- galaxyLogic 5y agoIt's not they don't run on anybody else's image. They might. It is that they are difficult to get to run on other images. Have you tried porting Smalltalk apps between different vendors' Smalltalks? Problem is there is no standard Smalltalk base-image. That is caused by the fact it is so easy to modify everything in the image you have and then save it and give it to others. Others then start developing against that. You can try meticulously to avoid this problem but it takes special attention. Contrast this with Java. You can run any Java program that was developed on a given version of JDK by using that same or later versions of JDK.
- igouy 5y ago> Contrast this with Java. Have you tried porting Swing apps to SWT or vice versa?
- igouy 5y ago> Problem is there is no standard Smalltalk base-image. No. That problem is that the standard Smalltalk class library is small. For example, the standard does not include user-interface classes and different vendors provided different proprietary classes. That problem has nothing to do with the image file. That problem is lack of standardization of Smalltalk libraries.