3 ms·

Price is one of the main factors, for sure. But it's not just that. The image was actually a big turn off even back then, even before source control was even

Price is one of the main factors, for sure. But it's not just that. The image was actually a big turn off even back then, even before source control was even a thing. Even today, Smalltalk runtimes (e.g. Pharo) are extremely slow compared to other languages, now imagine how slow Smalltalk was forty years ago... I can tell you, it was very, very slow (I used it on NeXT back then). I'm talking "watch the window draw with your naked eye" slow.

igouy 4y ago
> Price is one of the main factors, for sure. March 7, 1988 — "Smalltalk/V 286 is available now and costs $199.95, the company said. Registered users of Digitalk's Smalltalk/V can upgrade for $75 until June 1." https://books.google.com/books?id=CD8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA25&ots=jiXJNN0ii3&dq=digitalk%20v%2F286&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=digitalk%20v/286&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=CD8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA25&ots=... > … I can tell you, it was very, very slow… And of-course you used the Smalltalk profiler to fix that?
- hota_mazi 4y ago
  That's the developer license. The price to deploy was... close to absurd.
  - igouy 4y ago
    No, $199.95. You must be thinking of different software from a different vendor. Here's the "Smalltalk/V 286" Digitalk License Statement — http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutorial/SmalltalkVTutorial.pdf http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutorial... And by 1991, with Smalltalk/V Windows and Smalltalk/V PM — "Smalltalk/V code is portable between the Windows and the OS/2 versions. And the resulting application carries no runtime charges. All for just $499.95." (Advert on the last page of "The Smalltalk Report") https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkReport/PDFS/ST/91_95/SMAL0101.PDF https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkRepor...
  - igouy 4y ago
    "Digitalk, Inc. announced new versions of Smalltalk/V DOS and Smalltalk/V Mac that include royalty-free runtime. Smalltalk/V Windows and Smalltalk/V PM are already royalty free. … Prior to this new policy, there was a per-copy charge for runtime applications." September 1991 "The Smalltalk Report" p25 https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkReport/PDFS/ST/91_95/SMAL0101.PDF https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkRepor...
andai 4y ago
>"watch the window draw with your naked eye" slow Sadly I have this experience on a daily basis with Windows 10's file explorer. I ran XP in a VM today and was amazed that explorer windows not only open instantly, but fully drawn. In W10 it takes half a second to even respond, and then another half second while it draws the UI elements one by one.
oakpond 4y ago
> Even today, Smalltalk runtimes (e.g. Pharo) are extremely slow compared to other languages, now imagine how slow Smalltalk was forty years ago... It doesn't feel slow to me. I regularly use the VM on a Raspberry Pi and the GUI is snappy. On that same system I even use it to solve algorithmic puzzles, and I've been more often surprised that it isn't as slow as I had expected. So yeah, I'm sure it isn't the fastest language out there. However, "extremely slow" compared to other languages? It beats Python and Ruby most of the time. [1] [1] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/smalltalk.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
- hota_mazi 4y ago
  Well, saying that it's faster than the two slowest mainstream languages today is not exactly setting the bar very high :)
  - igouy 4y ago
    What makes you think Smalltalk was sold on the basis of runtime performance? "… it is possible to write time critical, real-time applications while still maintaining access to the user-interface facilities of Smalltalk. In the ESM testbed, C language support has been provided both by a package of C-to-Smalltalk communication primitives, and by high-level C code debugging facilities accessible from the Smalltalk environment." 1987 "USING OBJECTS TO DESIGN AND BUILD RADAR ESM SYSTEM'S" p200 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/38765.38825 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/38765.38825
    - hota_mazi 4y ago
      > What makes you think Smalltalk was sold on the basis of runtime performance? Nothing, because I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that Smalltalk has always been very slow compared to other languages. It was true decades ago, it's still true today.
      - igouy 4y ago

igouy 4y ago

> Price is one of the main factors, for sure. March 7, 1988 — "Smalltalk/V 286 is available now and costs $199.95, the company said. Registered users of Digitalk's Smalltalk/V can upgrade for $75 until June 1." https://books.google.com/books?id=CD8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA25&ots=jiXJNN0ii3&dq=digitalk%20v%2F286&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q=digitalk%20v/286&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=CD8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA25&ots=... > … I can tell you, it was very, very slow… And of-course you used the Smalltalk profiler to fix that?

hota_mazi 4y ago
That's the developer license. The price to deploy was... close to absurd.
- igouy 4y ago
  No, $199.95. You must be thinking of different software from a different vendor. Here's the "Smalltalk/V 286" Digitalk License Statement — http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutorial/SmalltalkVTutorial.pdf http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/SmalltalkVTutorial... And by 1991, with Smalltalk/V Windows and Smalltalk/V PM — "Smalltalk/V code is portable between the Windows and the OS/2 versions. And the resulting application carries no runtime charges. All for just $499.95." (Advert on the last page of "The Smalltalk Report") https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkReport/PDFS/ST/91_95/SMAL0101.PDF https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkRepor...
- igouy 4y ago
  "Digitalk, Inc. announced new versions of Smalltalk/V DOS and Smalltalk/V Mac that include royalty-free runtime. Smalltalk/V Windows and Smalltalk/V PM are already royalty free. … Prior to this new policy, there was a per-copy charge for runtime applications." September 1991 "The Smalltalk Report" p25 https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkReport/PDFS/ST/91_95/SMAL0101.PDF https://rmod-files.lille.inria.fr/Archives/TheSmalltalkRepor...

andai 4y ago

>"watch the window draw with your naked eye" slow Sadly I have this experience on a daily basis with Windows 10's file explorer. I ran XP in a VM today and was amazed that explorer windows not only open instantly, but fully drawn. In W10 it takes half a second to even respond, and then another half second while it draws the UI elements one by one.

oakpond 4y ago

> Even today, Smalltalk runtimes (e.g. Pharo) are extremely slow compared to other languages, now imagine how slow Smalltalk was forty years ago... It doesn't feel slow to me. I regularly use the VM on a Raspberry Pi and the GUI is snappy. On that same system I even use it to solve algorithmic puzzles, and I've been more often surprised that it isn't as slow as I had expected. So yeah, I'm sure it isn't the fastest language out there. However, "extremely slow" compared to other languages? It beats Python and Ruby most of the time. [1] [1] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/smalltalk.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

hota_mazi 4y ago
Well, saying that it's faster than the two slowest mainstream languages today is not exactly setting the bar very high :)
- igouy 4y ago
  What makes you think Smalltalk was sold on the basis of runtime performance? "… it is possible to write time critical, real-time applications while still maintaining access to the user-interface facilities of Smalltalk. In the ESM testbed, C language support has been provided both by a package of C-to-Smalltalk communication primitives, and by high-level C code debugging facilities accessible from the Smalltalk environment." 1987 "USING OBJECTS TO DESIGN AND BUILD RADAR ESM SYSTEM'S" p200 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/38765.38825 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/38765.38825
  - hota_mazi 4y ago
    > What makes you think Smalltalk was sold on the basis of runtime performance? Nothing, because I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that Smalltalk has always been very slow compared to other languages. It was true decades ago, it's still true today.
    - igouy 4y ago