5 ms·

It's things like this that always made me look a bit askance at Smalltalk. It feels a little like "Document_Final_FINAL_v3_(2).docx", a little like a dirty old

by floren 4y ago

It's things like this that always made me look a bit askance at Smalltalk. It feels a little like "Document_Final_FINAL_v3_(2).docx", a little like a dirty old whiteboard where you can still see outlines of notes from last year. Might not be a fair assessment, but as an outsider I've always felt this way about image-based systems.

Rochus 4y ago
Deploying an application was always an adventure. You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't.
- igouy 4y ago
  For some meaning of "contain things it shouldn't": Given that the base image we started working with didn't "contain things it shouldn't" why could we not be completely sure that base image + source code fileIn didn't "contain things it shouldn't" ?
  - Rochus 4y ago
    First, as most other companies using ST we were not working on the original image, but on a company-specific one that had been in use for a long time and contained a lot of company-specific stuff. On the other hand, there were also things in the original images of the commercial STs that one would or should not ship with the product.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Which is why image trimming tools did exist.
      - Rochus 4y ago
        I had Envy in later projects, which was very useful, but you simply had to trust it, which is not the same as to be completely sure.
        igouy 4y ago
        Rather than simply trust, wouldn't we test? (At some point, we might question whether we're putting similar effort into testing other software tools.)
        Rochus 4y ago
        We tested until our ears fell off; in particular, we had also to test all the stuff that the compiler (or linker) would otherwise have told us in a statically typed language; there was no other way; might explain why I directly switched to Ada for some time after ST; but how do you test for dead code (i.e. things in the image not used but still there for some reason)? It is not for nothing that people speak of a "Big ball of Mud" in the context of image based languages.
        igouy 4y ago
        > We tested until our ears fell off… And did you discover stuff that was reported to have been removed but your tests showed was not removed? In other words, examples where "trust it" would be a demonstrable mistake. > It is not for nothing that people speak of a "Big ball of Mud" in the context of image based languages. What process was used to manage source code? "At the outset of a project involving two or more programmers: Do assign a member of the team to be the version manager. … The responsibilities of the version manager consist of collecting and cataloging code files submitted by all members of the team, periodically building a new system image incorporating all submitted code files, and releasing the image for use by the team. The version manager stores the current release and all code files for that release in a central place, allowing team members read access, and disallowing write access for anyone except the version manager." (page 500) 1984 "Smalltalk-80 The Interactive Programming Environment" https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/TheInteractiveProgrammingEnv/TheInteractiveProgrammingEnv.pdf https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/TheInteractivePr...
        Rochus 4y ago
        Working with a team on industrial projects is another thing than quoting from a book that - albeit somewhat naively - even talks about configuration management in one section.
    - igouy 4y ago
      Firstly: company-specific base image = base image + company-specific source code fileIn Why could we not be completely sure that company-specific base image + source code fileIn didn't "contain things it shouldn't" ? Secondly: > … also things in the original images of the commercial STs that one would or should not ship with the product. That doesn't seem to be an example of "You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't." That seems to be an example of you being completely sure.
      - Rochus 4y ago
        Not sure what you're up to; there were things in the image nobody had the source code (or the current version) anymore, but even with the source code it was a nightmare; it would undoubtedly have been less bad had I then had tools like I recently built for ST80 and the knowledge gained with them.
        igouy 4y ago
        > … nobody had the source code … anymore… ! Would we blame Ada tools because we did not archive the source code we wrote? > … even with the source code it was a nightmare… What I was "up to" was trying to get past sweeping condemnation to understandable criticism.
        Rochus 4y ago
        That was my personal impression as a trained engineer based on relevant experience, not a condemnation; I on the other hand find it annoying when some people glorify Smalltalk in retroperspective and attribute to it any great qualities without evidence and against better knowledge; nevertheless, the technology is impressive in a historical context and worth studying (but I still wouldn't use it for industrial projects anymore and would also not like to tempt other people).
        igouy 4y ago
        > … annoying when some people glorify Smalltalk… Is that something you wish to claim I do? :-)
- igouy 4y ago
  ( cont. from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31999774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31999774 ) > … no algorithm that can identify all dead code reliably… Why were you so concerned with the removal of all dead code? Compared to "… nobody had the source code…" it seems like a minor issue.
  - igouy 4y ago
    ( cont. ) imo the more usual concern would be mistakenly removing code that was not dead. Without a design document, we might think there would be no senders of #factorial without understanding that the intention was to invoke that method on the command line. For example, $ cat fact.st Stdio stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; nextPut: Character lf.! SmalltalkImage current snapshot: false andQuit: true! $ bin/pharo --headless Pharo10-SNAPSHOT-64bit-502addc.image fact.st 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 So instrumenting methods and logging — https://stackoverflow.com/a/162719 https://stackoverflow.com/a/162719

by floren 4y ago

Rochus 4y ago

Deploying an application was always an adventure. You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't.

igouy 4y ago
For some meaning of "contain things it shouldn't": Given that the base image we started working with didn't "contain things it shouldn't" why could we not be completely sure that base image + source code fileIn didn't "contain things it shouldn't" ?
- Rochus 4y ago
  First, as most other companies using ST we were not working on the original image, but on a company-specific one that had been in use for a long time and contained a lot of company-specific stuff. On the other hand, there were also things in the original images of the commercial STs that one would or should not ship with the product.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Which is why image trimming tools did exist.
    - Rochus 4y ago
      I had Envy in later projects, which was very useful, but you simply had to trust it, which is not the same as to be completely sure.
      - igouy 4y ago
        Rather than simply trust, wouldn't we test? (At some point, we might question whether we're putting similar effort into testing other software tools.)
        Rochus 4y ago
        We tested until our ears fell off; in particular, we had also to test all the stuff that the compiler (or linker) would otherwise have told us in a statically typed language; there was no other way; might explain why I directly switched to Ada for some time after ST; but how do you test for dead code (i.e. things in the image not used but still there for some reason)? It is not for nothing that people speak of a "Big ball of Mud" in the context of image based languages.
        igouy 4y ago
        > We tested until our ears fell off… And did you discover stuff that was reported to have been removed but your tests showed was not removed? In other words, examples where "trust it" would be a demonstrable mistake. > It is not for nothing that people speak of a "Big ball of Mud" in the context of image based languages. What process was used to manage source code? "At the outset of a project involving two or more programmers: Do assign a member of the team to be the version manager. … The responsibilities of the version manager consist of collecting and cataloging code files submitted by all members of the team, periodically building a new system image incorporating all submitted code files, and releasing the image for use by the team. The version manager stores the current release and all code files for that release in a central place, allowing team members read access, and disallowing write access for anyone except the version manager." (page 500) 1984 "Smalltalk-80 The Interactive Programming Environment" https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/TheInteractiveProgrammingEnv/TheInteractiveProgrammingEnv.pdf https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/FreeBooks/TheInteractivePr...
        Rochus 4y ago
        Working with a team on industrial projects is another thing than quoting from a book that - albeit somewhat naively - even talks about configuration management in one section.
  - igouy 4y ago
    Firstly: company-specific base image = base image + company-specific source code fileIn Why could we not be completely sure that company-specific base image + source code fileIn didn't "contain things it shouldn't" ? Secondly: > … also things in the original images of the commercial STs that one would or should not ship with the product. That doesn't seem to be an example of "You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't." That seems to be an example of you being completely sure.
    - Rochus 4y ago
      Not sure what you're up to; there were things in the image nobody had the source code (or the current version) anymore, but even with the source code it was a nightmare; it would undoubtedly have been less bad had I then had tools like I recently built for ST80 and the knowledge gained with them.
      - igouy 4y ago
        > … nobody had the source code … anymore… ! Would we blame Ada tools because we did not archive the source code we wrote? > … even with the source code it was a nightmare… What I was "up to" was trying to get past sweeping condemnation to understandable criticism.
        Rochus 4y ago
        That was my personal impression as a trained engineer based on relevant experience, not a condemnation; I on the other hand find it annoying when some people glorify Smalltalk in retroperspective and attribute to it any great qualities without evidence and against better knowledge; nevertheless, the technology is impressive in a historical context and worth studying (but I still wouldn't use it for industrial projects anymore and would also not like to tempt other people).
        igouy 4y ago
        > … annoying when some people glorify Smalltalk… Is that something you wish to claim I do? :-)
igouy 4y ago
( cont. from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31999774 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31999774 ) > … no algorithm that can identify all dead code reliably… Why were you so concerned with the removal of all dead code? Compared to "… nobody had the source code…" it seems like a minor issue.
- igouy 4y ago
  ( cont. ) imo the more usual concern would be mistakenly removing code that was not dead. Without a design document, we might think there would be no senders of #factorial without understanding that the intention was to invoke that method on the command line. For example, $ cat fact.st Stdio stdout nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; nextPut: Character lf.! SmalltalkImage current snapshot: false andQuit: true! $ bin/pharo --headless Pharo10-SNAPSHOT-64bit-502addc.image fact.st 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 So instrumenting methods and logging — https://stackoverflow.com/a/162719 https://stackoverflow.com/a/162719