Dynamic Languages Entering Senescence?

At Reddit, someone with the handle "jerf" wrote:

Smalltalk is dynamically typed while most mainstream object oriented languages are statically typed.

This is literally true.

However, there's a huge variety of B-list object-oriented languages that are equally dynamic. Smalltalk's problem isn't that it has to compete with C++, it has to compete with Python, Ruby, and Clojure now. It failed to grow into that niche decades ago and there's probably basically no room left there anymore, because that's a niche that is now mature and just starting to enter the senescence phase [1]. That's not a time when a new competitor can come in and get a lot of share.

And Smalltalk has no answer to either of the two major directions I see new languages coming in on, either concurrency (where it is just another mutable state scripting language) or more advanced type systems allowing code to be written with better guarantees, where the charge is currently being led by Rust.

Fundamentally, it is of the past, has no ability I can see to get ahead of and partake in any future trends, and there's basically 0 chance of it experiencing any sort of new success now. Something based on Smalltalk could succeed, but it would have to be something changed to the point where it isn't Smalltalk anymore.

[1]: And before that statement "offends" someone, I do mean it is at the beginning of what is a multi-decade process. It may even still have some growth left in it, but it won't be very much, and over the next 5-10 years the Python/Perl/Ruby space is going to start getting seriously eaten into. The fundamental performance problems with the late-1990-style dynamic language is no longer ignorable.

To which I responded:

The intent of the Smalltalk campaign is not necessarily to compete with cutting-edge languages. Smalltalk is trying to compete with well-entrenched mainstream languages such as Java, JavaScript, and Python.

Moreover, Smalltalk has been continually evolving for many years, as evidenced by numerous dialects that experiment with new features. The Pharo Project continues this tradition. But you're right on one point: if Smalltalk changes too much, it will no longer be Smalltalk. The beauty of Smalltalk lies in its simplicity and elegance. Tacking on too many major new features will complicate the language and detract from this quality.

The world doesn't need more complicated languages; it needs simpler languages. That's the trend we've been seeing in recent years, e.g., in Go and Dart. The idea that piling on new features will solve our development woes is misguided. Simple languages that can be easily mastered, in combination with sound project management, will go a lot further than arcane features. I am not convinced that Rust, or any of its ilk, will ever become mainstream. I still remember the hype that surrounded Ada in the 1980s. It was supposed to provide all kinds of safety guarantees. But Ada never achieved significant popularity.

While Smalltalk is technically of the past, its image-based, "live" development environment has still not been surpassed by all the latest IDEs such as Eclipse, IntelliJ, and Visual Studio. Smalltalk still maintains a huge productivity advantage because its tools are simpler, easier to use, and at their roots incredibly powerful. I have always been put off by the complexity of Eclipse and Visual Studio.

So with these two advantages – language simplicity and powerful environment – Smalltalk can still find a place in modern software engineering. It may not push aside Java, but it can certainly carve out a healthy portion of the market.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Smalltalk Research" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.