4 ms·

> 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

> 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
      Very slow compared to some language implementations to do some things, not very slow compared to others. So much for vague generalities.

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
    Very slow compared to some language implementations to do some things, not very slow compared to others. So much for vague generalities.