[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Starting with smalltalk

From: Bram Neijt
Subject: Re: [Help-smalltalk] Re: Starting with smalltalk
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:56:33 +0200

On 7/5/06, Mike Anderson <address@hidden> wrote:
What you will find is that one of the major problems Smalltalk has as a
language is that the dialects are sufficiently dissimilar that programs
are not very portable, so the only programs you will find for GSt are
those that were written for GSt. There are projects that aim to remedy
this, eg. Sport. Porting Sport to gst would be a very useful project.
This is a problem, but with the growing number of architectures and
operating systems, it is just as hard for any other language

The other main problem, related to the above, is that the Smalltalk Way
is image-based development, which unfortunately means that the easiest
way to distribute programs is as images, not code.

At a personal level, the main problem I have is that the packaging
system is a bit inflexible, so splitting out a package is hard work.
I have not found anything about packaging yet, however this is the
kind of thing that will keep a language from ever getting out (even
out of a computer ;-) ).

>> - A way of editing smalltalk files without the use of a commercial IDE

This sounds as if you're thinking about commercial Smalltalks, like
Visual Works. Actually, most other Smalltalks don't use files - you
develop within the IDE, and code at the method level. Where the source
code is outside of the image, it is found in a repository like Envy or
Store, ie. a database.
I'm sorry, but if Smalltalk can't even get out of my computer, I might
just not bother to learn it at all. This does explain why I can't find
any real-life implementations on the internet (like a simple hello,
ls, find, sort or anything like that with install scripts,
documentations and comments).

Then I guess there arn't any standard commandline argument parsing
libraries in the stdlib either, right?


PS If all this is really like I now think it is, I can imagine why
this language never took off!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]