3 ms·
But only by leaving the image model behind. There are many Smalltalks without an image actually... GNU-Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X and Amber, for instance. GemStone
by bromagosa 13y ago
But only by leaving the image model behind.
There are many Smalltalks without an image actually... GNU-Smalltalk, Smalltalk/X and Amber, for instance. GemStone/S uses a mixture between image and filesystem, so it can't be regarded as a traditional image-based system either. The only Smalltalks that still use an image paradigm (that I know of) are Squeak derivatives (Squeak, Pharo, Cuis) and VisualWorks.
That said, I believe the image is a very valid model, and I prefer working on a Pharo environment than anywhere else. However powerful text editors, IDEs and debuggers may be, you can never reach the same level of integration between tools and system if your tools, your language and your system are not the exact same thing.
- dfox 13y agoBoth Gnu Smalltalk and Smalltalk/X are able to use images, while GST is optimized for "normal source code" model, in ST/X it's mostly an artifact of implementation and file system resident source code is simply a way to store what essentially amounts to changes file in classical implementations (the killer feature is that you in most common case can use non-ST specific VCS without significant issues). In all I haven't seen ST implementation with good development tools that is not at least partially image based. The problem I see with ST IDEs is the fact that most advanced features work by introspecting live image state and autogenerating some source code, which completely break any attempts to meaningfully define what is (versionable) programmer-written input and what is derived tool output.
- bromagosa 13y agoTrue, they're partially image-based. In all I haven't seen ST implementation with good development tools that is not at least partially image based. But what about Amber?
- hboon 13y agoDolphin uses images too.