3 ms·
I think the situation is way simpler than the author contends. Smalltalk simply has poor workflow from the programmers perspective, compared to what he's used
by tlack 12y ago
I think the situation is way simpler than the author contends.
Smalltalk simply has poor workflow from the programmers perspective, compared to what he's used to.
It may be awesome. But no one will ever know, because it's too different from the normal developer's work flow to easily gain adoption, even if the benefits are substantial.
Could something like Smalltalk work in such a way that the "image" is a series of files and folders, so if something goes nuts we can do what we always do and poke around in the data?
Could automatic code reloading and online introspection be applied through a more traditional client (debugger) - server (running process) setup?
Something like that may have a better chance. This machine ain't got time to slow down and make repairs.
- CookWithMe 12y ago> Could something like Smalltalk work in such a way that the "image" is a series of files and folders, so if something goes nuts we can do what we always do and poke around in the data? Well, speaking for Squeak: The image is just a file. You can open it and poke around in it. I don't recall why I had to do it exactly (did some meta-programming with Smalltalk at university... maybe my program overwrote some fundamental functions in Object or similar), but I don't remember it to be terribly complicated. Definitely not as simple as opening a JSON file, but not as hard as decrypting the assembly of a compiled C-program or analyzing the memory of a crashed program.