4 ms·
Normally they do, but some implementations (notably GNU SmallTalk) are so afraid of the SmallTalk way of doing things that they use source files instead, which
by arnsholt 3y ago
Normally they do, but some implementations (notably GNU SmallTalk) are so afraid of the SmallTalk way of doing things that they use source files instead, which IMO removes a large part of the attraction of using SmallTalk at all.
- sebastianconcpt 3y agoAs a full-stack engineer and old-time smalltalker I wholeheartedly agree. Minimal images without UI and a kick-ass package management system should be the foundation of whatever else you want to build with it.
- jhbadger 3y agoAnd in the 1980s there was Little Smalltalk, which ran on UNIX systems normally accessed via terminals, so it was also file-based without a GUI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Smalltalk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Smalltalk
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoThe image-based nature of Smalltalk-80 is both a positive and a negative. Inability to interoperate seamlessly with a "standard" developer workflow (editors, revision control, deployment) has, I'm pretty sure, hampered adoption. I know there are tools and workarounds, and I'm quite familiar with how things are done there, and I used to be a huge advocate of the Smalltalk style approach. But over time, I've come to see two sides to this discussion.