3 ms·

I see people here mentioned GNU Smalltalk. The last time Smalltalk was posted here, some more seasoned people talked me into looking at Smalltalk again. Now,

by 616c 11y ago

I see people here mentioned GNU Smalltalk. The last time Smalltalk was posted here, some more seasoned people talked me into looking at Smalltalk again. Now, I am getting more and more into Emacs. I like SBCL a lot, and I have played with it more. But Smalltalk also has an appeal, with similar ideas in live persistence coding. However, I am more comfortable with GNU Smalltalk. Problem is Pharo has the powerful CogVM. How performant is GNU Smalltalk in relation to Pharo. If I wanted to run the same Seaside infrastructure as these dudes (there is a fork of Seaside included in GNU Smalltalk from the start), would it collapse under loads Pharo's CogVM can handle? This is just out of curiosity. Obviously this is armchair engineering 101, but I would be interested to know more about this. There is such little interest in Smalltalk at scale it is hard to find this info with limited searching.

PuercoPop 11y ago
Don't use Gnu Smalltalk, it is a huge disservice to Smalltalk. The main selling point of Pharo/Squeak is that it is a live interactive developing experience. You don't get that with GNU Smalltalk.
- 616c 11y ago
  Does that really answer my question? There is talk here of Shampoo, which allows Emacs to do many of the things you suggest within a textual environment like Emacs. I understand you have your preference (and I know your name comes up with Pharo on the net; I have seen it before and I can tell you are active in the community, so I say this out of respect), but I just wanted to try something I am more comfortable with to ease my transition.
- coldtea 11y ago
  People could actually prefer the text editing compared to live interactive delopment. Smalltalk is good enough language to not need that to be interesting in itself.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  GNU Smalltalk actually allows me to use a good development environment. Other Smalltalks apparently don't.

by 616c 11y ago

PuercoPop 11y ago

Don't use Gnu Smalltalk, it is a huge disservice to Smalltalk. The main selling point of Pharo/Squeak is that it is a live interactive developing experience. You don't get that with GNU Smalltalk.

616c 11y ago
Does that really answer my question? There is talk here of Shampoo, which allows Emacs to do many of the things you suggest within a textual environment like Emacs. I understand you have your preference (and I know your name comes up with Pharo on the net; I have seen it before and I can tell you are active in the community, so I say this out of respect), but I just wanted to try something I am more comfortable with to ease my transition.
coldtea 11y ago
People could actually prefer the text editing compared to live interactive delopment. Smalltalk is good enough language to not need that to be interesting in itself.
cbd1984 11y ago
GNU Smalltalk actually allows me to use a good development environment. Other Smalltalks apparently don't.