Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
106 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Klaus D. Witzel
Quote:
Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a resurgence in  
the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as indicated by Georg  
Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference, noting that none of his  
company's customer requests exhibit a desire for Smalltalk. Chan writes  
that Smalltalk's status as a OO language does not really provide an  
explanation of why it might be superior to other OO languages, and why,  
given such alleged superiority, it has been displaced by the likes of Java  
and C# as the most preferred language for enterprises in the last decade.  
"This is the essence of the Smalltalk Paradox," Chan says. The author  
reasons that developers may have difficulty relating Smalltalk's  
programming concepts, presented by defining the language's five principal  
vocabulary terms (object, message, class, instance, and method), to  
something else they already know. The vocabulary defines four rules of the  
language: All things are objects; all objects represent instances of some  
class; objects perform tasks by sending messages; and messages are  
deployed via methods. Chan attributes Smalltalk's lack of popularity to  
several factors, including the defensive posture Smalltalk developers  
assume when the language's superiority is questioned, and the absence of a  
major industry backer with the marketing muscle to facilitate Smalltalk's  
mainstream penetration. The author believes the Smalltalk community would  
receive a significant boost by attracting outsiders and discussing  
collaboration.
Unquote.

- http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/187200914

/Klaus


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Colin Putney

On May 10, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:

> - http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/187200914

Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with that article. He seemed to think  
that somebody at StS had the brilliant idea of writing web apps in  
Smalltalk, and folks were busy figuring out how such a thing might be  
done. These Smalltalkers are showing a lot of pluck - maybe they'll  
survive after all.

I suppose it's impressive the article got published at all.

Colin

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Laurence Rozier
In reply to this post by Klaus D. Witzel
Thanks. The presentation mentioned in the article is at:

http://www.heeg.de/downloads/vortraege/Vortrag_Toronto_2006/Vortrag_Toronto2006_GeorgHeeg.pdf

On 5/10/06, Klaus D. Witzel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Quote:
Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a resurgence in
the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as indicated by Georg
Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference, noting that none of his
company's customer requests exhibit a desire for Smalltalk. Chan writes
that Smalltalk's status as a OO language does not really provide an
explanation of why it might be superior to other OO languages, and why,
given such alleged superiority, it has been displaced by the likes of Java
and C# as the most preferred language for enterprises in the last decade.
"This is the essence of the Smalltalk Paradox," Chan says. The author
reasons that developers may have difficulty relating Smalltalk's
programming concepts, presented by defining the language's five principal
vocabulary terms (object, message, class, instance, and method), to
something else they already know. The vocabulary defines four rules of the
language: All things are objects; all objects represent instances of some
class; objects perform tasks by sending messages; and messages are
deployed via methods. Chan attributes Smalltalk's lack of popularity to
several factors, including the defensive posture Smalltalk developers
assume when the language's superiority is questioned, and the absence of a
major industry backer with the marketing muscle to facilitate Smalltalk's
mainstream penetration. The author believes the Smalltalk community would
receive a significant boost by attracting outsiders and discussing
collaboration.
Unquote.

- http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/187200914

/Klaus





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Edgar J. De Cleene
In reply to this post by Klaus D. Witzel
Klaus D. Witzel puso en su mail :

> Quote:
> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a resurgence in
> the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as indicated by Georg
> Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference, noting that none of his
> company's customer requests exhibit a desire for Smalltalk. Chan writes
> that Smalltalk's status as a OO language does not really provide an
> explanation of why it might be superior to other OO languages, and why,
> given such alleged superiority, it has been displaced by the likes of Java
> and C# as the most preferred language for enterprises in the last decade.
> "This is the essence of the Smalltalk Paradox," Chan says. The author
> reasons that developers may have difficulty relating Smalltalk's
> programming concepts, presented by defining the language's five principal
> vocabulary terms (object, message, class, instance, and method), to
> something else they already know. The vocabulary defines four rules of the
> language: All things are objects; all objects represent instances of some
> class; objects perform tasks by sending messages; and messages are
> deployed via methods. Chan attributes Smalltalk's lack of popularity to
> several factors, including the defensive posture Smalltalk developers
> assume when the language's superiority is questioned, and the absence of a
> major industry backer with the marketing muscle to facilitate Smalltalk's
> mainstream penetration. The author believes the Smalltalk community would
> receive a significant boost by attracting outsiders and discussing
> collaboration.
> Unquote.
Well, some people think what only 3 % of programmers have what Smalltalk
requires.

So , is not surprise what the others 97% use other not living systems .

Or maybe the difference is just this. A Smalltalk image is a living system
and IMHO no other could claim this was true.

Edgar



       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Michael Latta
Yes Smalltalk is a living system, and supports mutation far better than
other systems.  In Smalltalk to change the definition of a class like
Customer you just change it.  In Java you recompile it, stop the old server,
start the new one, and add all the logic to migrate instances in the
database from the old to the new format, implement a different serialization
file format, or such.  Because all other systems start with a clean slate
persistent data must be stored in a non-object separate form as data, and
the objects reconstituted from that.

I think where Smalltalk lost is in not getting the difference in perspective
and its benefits out.  While many even in the Smalltalk community disparage
become: it is fundamental to many of the benefits in Smalltalk. The ability
to adapt objects in-flight, to update execution contexts, to update existing
object instances, to transform a small integer to a large integer
transparently.  Just as Lisp, APL, or other "niche" languages require
thinking about programming differently, Smalltalk does as well.  The OO
aspect of Smalltalk is a small part of the value, but is what gets all the
press time.

Unfortunately these days there needs to be either a large benefactor or a
strong grass-roots effort to get a technology going.  Smalltalk never really
had a benefactor, and the grass roots support is not getting a lot of
projects started.  While Squeak can do far more than Ruby or Python, they
get much more press.  In part this is because Smalltalk is seen as old.  We
need to get the message out that there are a lot of aspects to Smalltalk
that have not been moved to the current crop of "OO" languages.  We also
need to get some good performance comparisons (time and space) comparing
modern Smalltalk to other "scripting" or "dynamic" languages.  I bet
comparing to .Net 2.0 would be an interesting space / time comparison as
well.

Michael




-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lic.
Edgar J. De Cleene
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:47 PM
To: squeakdev
Subject: Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal
(05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Klaus D. Witzel puso en su mail :

> Quote:
> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a resurgence in
> the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as indicated by Georg
> Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference, noting that none of his
> company's customer requests exhibit a desire for Smalltalk. Chan writes
> that Smalltalk's status as a OO language does not really provide an
> explanation of why it might be superior to other OO languages, and why,
> given such alleged superiority, it has been displaced by the likes of Java
> and C# as the most preferred language for enterprises in the last decade.
> "This is the essence of the Smalltalk Paradox," Chan says. The author
> reasons that developers may have difficulty relating Smalltalk's
> programming concepts, presented by defining the language's five principal
> vocabulary terms (object, message, class, instance, and method), to
> something else they already know. The vocabulary defines four rules of the
> language: All things are objects; all objects represent instances of some
> class; objects perform tasks by sending messages; and messages are
> deployed via methods. Chan attributes Smalltalk's lack of popularity to
> several factors, including the defensive posture Smalltalk developers
> assume when the language's superiority is questioned, and the absence of a
> major industry backer with the marketing muscle to facilitate Smalltalk's
> mainstream penetration. The author believes the Smalltalk community would
> receive a significant boost by attracting outsiders and discussing
> collaboration.
> Unquote.
Well, some people think what only 3 % of programmers have what Smalltalk
requires.

So , is not surprise what the others 97% use other not living systems .

Or maybe the difference is just this. A Smalltalk image is a living system
and IMHO no other could claim this was true.

Edgar



       
       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Bryce Kampjes
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
Colin Putney writes:
 >
 > On May 10, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
 >
 > > - http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/187200914
 >
 > Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with that article. He seemed to think  
 > that somebody at StS had the brilliant idea of writing web apps in  
 > Smalltalk, and folks were busy figuring out how such a thing might be  
 > done. These Smalltalkers are showing a lot of pluck - maybe they'll  
 > survive after all.
 >
 > I suppose it's impressive the article got published at all.

Personally, I think the article is great. The key thing is it should
help legitimatise Smalltalk again. OK, if it was written by a
Smalltalker I'd expect the facts to be better, but for an article
by an outsider it's cool.

Let's not pick on decent positive press from someone who's not
currently part of our community. Sure it could be better, but if
nothing else it should make it easier for one of us to get a more
accurate article published if and when one of us writes it.

Bryce

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Dan Shafer-3
In reply to this post by Michael Latta
FWIW, my take is that this is a simple problem with no good solution  
other than a major benefactor. And I don't see a major benefactor on  
the horizon.

The problem is defining, explaining, illustrating and evangelizing  
the huge advantages of Smalltalk (Squeak?). Finding and focusing on a  
smallish number of such features and benefits is hard enough. Witness  
the fact that this post mentions "become" as a major feature and in  
all my years in the software biz, I've never once heard it mentioned  
let alone touted. Smalltalk has so many advantages in so many ways  
that just defining its differentiating points is a task.

Two years ago, my friend Kevin Altis was spearheading a project  
called PythonCard, an attempt to create a visual IDE on top of Python  
using wxWidgets (then called wxWindows). He paused the project after  
nearly completing it to a ready state because his feeling was it was  
never going to get a lot of traction until Python itself got better  
known and more widely used. He spent a lot of time in the intervening  
two years evangelizing Smalltalk. And Kevin's good at that. I don't  
think he'd claim that visibility and acceptance of Python is yet at a  
stage where it can be seen and used for what it truly is in a broader  
context.

Smalltalk has that problem in spades. I'm not sure the problem can be  
solved. But I'm also not sure it *needs* to be. There's no real harm  
in using a language viewed as outside the mainstream as long as  
there's a loyal base of users enhancing, extending and supporting it,  
is there? We don't need Corporate America to adopt Squeak and then  
try to fence it in, standardize it, confine it, define it, package it  
and market it. For those who use it to create viable solutions to  
problems they or their customers face, it's a secret weapon. It's a  
WMD - Weapon of 'Mazing Development!

:-)

Dan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Jecel Assumpcao Jr
Dan Shafer wrote on Wed, 10 May 2006 15:09:22 -0700
> FWIW, my take is that this is a simple problem with no good solution  
> other than a major benefactor. And I don't see a major benefactor on  
> the horizon.

I was hoping OLPC would sort of play that role, but it seems that their
focus will be on Python instead.

While there is some value in trying to get existing programmers to look
at Smalltalk, the fact is people simply don't like to change. So you the
first system you present to a person is a good one then that
characteristic isn't as much of a problem. Of course, normally the first
system a person learns is what happens to be the most popular at the
moment and since these aren't good we get a vicious cycle. This is why I
see "break with the past" projects like the OLPC (and my own) as a great
chance to change this.

Once you have a new group using something different and this group grows
to the point where they are the majority, *then* you have the existing
programmers getting interested in it and possibly deciding to change to
it.

-- Jecel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Marten Feldtmann
In reply to this post by Klaus D. Witzel
Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:

> Quote:
> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a
> resurgence in  the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as
> indicated by Georg  Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference,
> noting that none of his  company's customer requests exhibit a desire
> for Smalltalk.


 I'm not sure, if Georg Heeg means "new" customers. Perhaps he sees
reactions
from old customers, who remember their investment into Smalltalk 8 years ago
and these programs are running and runnning ... and now these customers
are updating their application with VW 7.x .

 Another story I heard was, that these old customers realized, that
money is
short and its much cheaper to enhance their old running applications than
to rewrite it from scratch - not knowing, if this would work.

 And another rumour was, that these "enhancements" are often against
company rules ("we do all with Java in the future") and these investments
are below a magical amount of money, where the local subsidaries of
these companies can do the enhancement investment without querying
the bosses of the IT departments in the main company.

  Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.

 Marten

--
Marten Feldtmann - Germany - Software Development
Information regarding VA Smalltalk and DMS-system
"MSK - Mien Schrievkrom" at: www.schrievkrom.de


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Klaus D. Witzel
Hi Marten,

on Thu, 11 May 2006 08:59:04 +0200, you <[hidden email]> wrote:

>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.

And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in an  
exploratory programming environment"
- http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865

/Klaus


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Marten Feldtmann
Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:

> Hi Marten,
>
> on Thu, 11 May 2006 08:59:04 +0200, you <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>
>
> And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in an  
> exploratory programming environment"
> - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865

 Nice to see ! More of these publications and somewhere in
the future a company will create a new language - perhaps
containing all needed stuff.

 But I also think that this new kind of programming will
have to fight against the installed user (=programmer)
base, which I think is not ready for that at all.

 The presentation I mentioned also have some other
points for a "better" language:

 - source code repository (instead of simple file
   management). ENVY was mentioned in this point.

 - a mixture of contract and interface design

 - the possibility to use "static typing" in useful
   places (e.g. on module borders) only.

 - constraints ....

 - source code (when needed at all) has to have all
   the specification of one program (and not only
   as remarks).

 - perhaps leaving source code at all - http://subtextual.org/
   was mentioned as an example.

 - the possibility to include other languages (DSL) within
   one system/solution (.NET, Prolog/ST-V)


--
Marten Feldtmann - Germany - Software Development
Information regarding VA Smalltalk and DMS-system
"MSK - Mien Schrievkrom" at: www.schrievkrom.de



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Klaus D. Witzel
On Thu, 11 May 2006 11:37:15 +0200, Marten Feldtmann  
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:
>
>> Hi Marten,
>>
>> on Thu, 11 May 2006 08:59:04 +0200, you <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
>>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>>
>>
>> And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in an  
>> exploratory programming environment"
>> - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865
>
>  Nice to see ! More of these publications and somewhere in
> the future a company will create a new language - perhaps
> containing all needed stuff.

Sure! See for example Alan's message
-  
http://www.google.com/search?q=there+is+an+entity+somewhere+between+classes+and+Self+prototypes+I%27ve+been+calling+them+exemplars

>  But I also think that this new kind of programming will
> have to fight against the installed user (=programmer)
> base, which I think is not ready for that at all.

But yes {they are getting ready, I mean}. During the previous decade  
they've managed to adopt from curly braces with-static-or-dynamic-linker  
to curly braces with-all-base-classes-are-foreigners ;-) The latter is not  
much a difference to Squeak et al.

/Klaus


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Ralph Johnson
People keep mentioning technical aspects of Smalltalk as being the
ones that will make people want to use it.  Technologists are
interested in technology, so this is not surprising.  However, people
are more important than technology.  If Smalltalk is going to have a
resurgence, the people who know and love Smalltalk will have to make
it happen.  It isn't going to happen automatically.  Jeremy Chan is
right to emphasize people problems like "no big company is pushing
it".

Every tool has its stengths and weaknesses.  To make Small prosper,
people should use it where it works and not use it where it doesn't
work.  Smalltalk is fantastic in small groups of motivated
programmers.  It is not so good in large groups with high turnover.
People seem to get excited about large Smalltalk projects, and to long
for the days of ten years ago when there were 100 person projects.  In
my opinion, those projects were never run well, and were probably all
a mistake.  Many of them were successful in the sense of bringing a
product to market, but all the ones I saw could have been done faster
and cheaper with a smaller team.

Smalltalk fans ought to go start companies.  Smalltalk has lots of
advantages in a startup, where it is important to get something
running quickly and where compatibility with existing systems is not
so important.  It doesn't work as well in a big company, where it is
iimportant to play it safe and there are existing standards and lots
of  existing systems.

Smalltalk is a wonderful language both for teaching and for research.
I've always wondered why it did so poorly in universities.  I think
that one of the reasons is that it is hard to learn.  There are too
many things about Smalltalk that are new.  The language is easy, but
the class libraries are large, and the programming environment is
different from what people are used to.  People are not used to "live
objects" and do not know how to take advantage of them.  The class
library is not modularized, so it is hard for newcomers to see what to
learn first.

Smalltalk is pretty easy to learn if you are pair programming with an
expert whose main goal is for you to learn, not to build a system.  It
is hard to learn from a book and from experimentation.  I taught
myself Smalltalk 20 years ago and have since taught it to a thousand
or so students.  I tell my students that they all will learn Smalltalk
faster than I did, because they will have a teacher.  This is not 100%
true, since some students didn't try very hard.  But it is pretty easy
to learn when you have a teacher who knows Smalltalk well.  One of the
problems with getting it used in schools is that somebody has to teach
the teachers.

So, if you want to help Smalltalk spread, sit down and program with a newbie!

-Ralph Johnson

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

stéphane ducasse-2
In reply to this post by Colin Putney
Same feelling here.

>> - http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/187200914
>
> Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with that article. He seemed to think  
> that somebody at StS had the brilliant idea of writing web apps in  
> Smalltalk, and folks were busy figuring out how such a thing might  
> be done. These Smalltalkers are showing a lot of pluck - maybe  
> they'll survive after all.
>
> I suppose it's impressive the article got published at all.
>
> Colin
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

stéphane ducasse-2
In reply to this post by Klaus D. Witzel
>
>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a  
>> reborn of
>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>
> And from Sun, see "Constructing a metacircular Virtual machine in  
> an exploratory programming environment"
> - http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1094865

Do not dream guys.
Sun just let David doing that but he is alone with two students.

Stef

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

stéphane ducasse-2
In reply to this post by Ralph Johnson
Yes!
I think that avi and colin are giving us a lesson: seaside, MC, OB
We should not let them alone invent the future!

Stef


> People keep mentioning technical aspects of Smalltalk as being the
> ones that will make people want to use it.  Technologists are
> interested in technology, so this is not surprising.  However, people
> are more important than technology.  If Smalltalk is going to have a
> resurgence, the people who know and love Smalltalk will have to make
> it happen.  It isn't going to happen automatically.  Jeremy Chan is
> right to emphasize people problems like "no big company is pushing
> it".
>
> Every tool has its stengths and weaknesses.  To make Small prosper,
> people should use it where it works and not use it where it doesn't
> work.  Smalltalk is fantastic in small groups of motivated
> programmers.  It is not so good in large groups with high turnover.
> People seem to get excited about large Smalltalk projects, and to long
> for the days of ten years ago when there were 100 person projects.  In
> my opinion, those projects were never run well, and were probably all
> a mistake.  Many of them were successful in the sense of bringing a
> product to market, but all the ones I saw could have been done faster
> and cheaper with a smaller team.
>
> Smalltalk fans ought to go start companies.  Smalltalk has lots of
> advantages in a startup, where it is important to get something
> running quickly and where compatibility with existing systems is not
> so important.  It doesn't work as well in a big company, where it is
> iimportant to play it safe and there are existing standards and lots
> of  existing systems.
>
> Smalltalk is a wonderful language both for teaching and for research.
> I've always wondered why it did so poorly in universities.  I think
> that one of the reasons is that it is hard to learn.  There are too
> many things about Smalltalk that are new.  The language is easy, but
> the class libraries are large, and the programming environment is
> different from what people are used to.  People are not used to "live
> objects" and do not know how to take advantage of them.  The class
> library is not modularized, so it is hard for newcomers to see what to
> learn first.
>
> Smalltalk is pretty easy to learn if you are pair programming with an
> expert whose main goal is for you to learn, not to build a system.  It
> is hard to learn from a book and from experimentation.  I taught
> myself Smalltalk 20 years ago and have since taught it to a thousand
> or so students.  I tell my students that they all will learn Smalltalk
> faster than I did, because they will have a teacher.  This is not 100%
> true, since some students didn't try very hard.  But it is pretty easy
> to learn when you have a teacher who knows Smalltalk well.  One of the
> problems with getting it used in schools is that somebody has to teach
> the teachers.
>
> So, if you want to help Smalltalk spread, sit down and program with  
> a newbie!
>
> -Ralph Johnson
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Alejandro F. Reimondo
In reply to this post by Marten Feldtmann
Hi all,

IMO we confuse people when we try to talk to them
 using the same language, and words they use for
 current tools.
Some words we use and we *must* think about
 the convenience to continue doing the same way
 are:

-Smalltalk as a (dynamic) language.
 no comment now on the topic because I have
 written on it in the past and no answer has been
 received in this list (why?).
 -I think it is one of the most important word to confuse
 people and force them to do not think in other terms
 than talking to a computer... (instead of building systems
 or working in a non-declarative manner)

-"Class"
 aClass is an element of a formal theory, like aRule
 but more complex.
 Java, C++ and all other OOL use classes...
 because they are languages and can be used *only*
 declarativelly (in an object ORIENTED way).
 We use (in Smalltalk) an expression for creating "classes",
 but really we do not have classes, we have "SPECIES"
 in smalltalk, because we can use smalltalk in other manner
 than declarative ways, e.g. doing non-formal activities.
 I say "sepcies" because they have organic relations
 conforming an ambience (an open system where
 evolution can be observed as a subproduct of systems
 development -not planned- ).
 Why we talk about "Classes" and not about Species?
 Have we evaluated the cost of continue talking that way?
 Why we talk about packages and not about organs
     and organisms?

 If we use the same words as scientist used for theory,
 people will think in terms of known facts, and will
 compare Smalltalk's syntax, frameworks or other
 OO povs; but never will be interested in other topics.
 (most smalltalkers use smalltalk as a very good IDE
  and design using pieces of paper; and miss the
  differences between non-formal design and informal
  design)

-Image
 When we talk about "the image", people does not
 understand the convenience of developing "applications"
 that way.
 But also we give people the idea of considering Smalltalk
  as a container (of objects).
This kind of argument is valuable for newbies, but must
 be corrected early in the instruction process, because
 inhibit people to undestand/realize activities on open
 systems.
 The concept of "living" system (I prefer the world "ambient"
 to do not make analogies to nature)  let people put the
 formal/declarative way of producing software in its
 place and recognize that there are situations where
 we need more than OO techniques to build systems.

-Variables
 we use the term "instance variable" for the collaborators
 of an object.
 The world variable has well known meaning in traditional
  computing, and refers to a place in memory that
 "varies" contents.
 We put "names" to objects in smalltalk, but do not use
  variables because we do not consider memory as a
 directionable (through names nor numbres) device.

-Assignment
 we assign a name to an object in smalltalk
  (we name objects) and the concept is not the same
  of assigment of a value to a variable as in Pascal.

-Evolution
 when we talk about evolution, people understand the
 term in a colloquial meaning, and most of the time consider
 that evolution is something that can be produced (an object).
 Evolution as an emergent/cocnecuence of the survival
  of a system is something not "natural" for people (nor
  for Darwin :-P )

-Message & method
 people talk about them without paying attention to the
 differences; if we do not correct the ambiguity sooner
 the words we say have diferent meaning.
 If we do the correction, we must not continue talking
 until sure about the listener undestood the concepts.
 In both cases dialoge is broken and is not possible
 to talk to an unknown/big audience.

-Frameworks and engines
 It is correct to talk about frameworks in Java and in Smalltalk,
  because both are usefull to specify anstractions.
 It is not correct to talk about machines (or engines, an
  instantiation of a framework) in Java (or C++, or .Net)
 because they are not ambiences and abstractions
 are not used/present at the same time as running instances.

-Code
 When we talk about (source)code (or genetic code)
  we are promoting to do not consider the convenience
  to work with objects.
 The same occurs when we say that smalltalk is "A/one"
  language.
 Smalltalk contains a native language, but can hold many
  languages each for a diferent context...

-object ORIENTATED
 Smalltalk is not object oriented.
 Java, C++, .net and other oo plataforms and decarative
 languages are object "oriented" becasue you do not have
 the object (the instance) to talk to.

-information
 people view information as anObject.
 we can use the ambience to show taht there is another
 ways of thinking about information (e.g. "information as aProcess")
( more on information:
    http://www.truxton.com/~trux/etc/boi/
    spanish version at
    http://www.smalltalking.net/Papers/boi/boi.html
)

cheers,
Ale.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Marten Feldtmann" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:59 AM
Subject: Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal
(05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}


> Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:
>
> > Quote:
> > Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a
> > resurgence in  the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as
> > indicated by Georg  Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions Conference,
> > noting that none of his  company's customer requests exhibit a desire
> > for Smalltalk.
>
>
>  I'm not sure, if Georg Heeg means "new" customers. Perhaps he sees
> reactions
> from old customers, who remember their investment into Smalltalk 8 years
ago

> and these programs are running and runnning ... and now these customers
> are updating their application with VW 7.x .
>
>  Another story I heard was, that these old customers realized, that
> money is
> short and its much cheaper to enhance their old running applications than
> to rewrite it from scratch - not knowing, if this would work.
>
>  And another rumour was, that these "enhancements" are often against
> company rules ("we do all with Java in the future") and these investments
> are below a magical amount of money, where the local subsidaries of
> these companies can do the enhancement investment without querying
> the bosses of the IT departments in the main company.
>
>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a reborn of
> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>
>  Marten
>
> --
> Marten Feldtmann - Germany - Software Development
> Information regarding VA Smalltalk and DMS-system
> "MSK - Mien Schrievkrom" at: www.schrievkrom.de
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal(05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Alejandro F. Reimondo
In reply to this post by Ralph Johnson
thanks Ralph for your words,

>Smalltalk is a wonderful language both for teaching
> and for research.
>I've always wondered why it did so poorly in universities.

I think the reason is related with univerities and their
 relation with formal methods insetead of results&costs
 of application.

It is easy to have inmediate results with languages...
 read a book and you have learn enough to
 continue doing the same, with another syntax.
Laguages suffers of premature obsolescence, then it is a
 very good tool to feel diferent and make people to be
 always investing in "personal training".

> The class library is not modularized, so it is hard
> for newcomers to see what to learn first.

One of the difficult topics to understand is
 that classes are not classes (because they coevolve)...

>Smalltalk is pretty easy to learn if you are pair programming
> with an expert whose main goal is for you to learn,
> not to build a system.  It is hard to learn from a book
> and from experimentation.

It is a very important point that reveals
 smalltalk as propagable by a parent-child
 mechanism, like benign religions.
Viral propagation are the mechanism observed
 in Java and any other popular language.

This diference is very important to understand
 why it is not necessary for smalltalk to have a huge
 number of adopters to survive, and other effects
 ovservables in human relations in smalltalk
 communities.

>So, if you want to help Smalltalk spread, sit down
> and program with a newbie!

I really agree and promote the same attitude,
 because it is is important (imho) to smalltalker's
 sanity.

best,
Ale.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Johnson" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal(05/06/06)
Chan, Jeremy}


People keep mentioning technical aspects of Smalltalk as being the
ones that will make people want to use it.  Technologists are
interested in technology, so this is not surprising.  However, people
are more important than technology.  If Smalltalk is going to have a
resurgence, the people who know and love Smalltalk will have to make
it happen.  It isn't going to happen automatically.  Jeremy Chan is
right to emphasize people problems like "no big company is pushing
it".

Every tool has its stengths and weaknesses.  To make Small prosper,
people should use it where it works and not use it where it doesn't
work.  Smalltalk is fantastic in small groups of motivated
programmers.  It is not so good in large groups with high turnover.
People seem to get excited about large Smalltalk projects, and to long
for the days of ten years ago when there were 100 person projects.  In
my opinion, those projects were never run well, and were probably all
a mistake.  Many of them were successful in the sense of bringing a
product to market, but all the ones I saw could have been done faster
and cheaper with a smaller team.

Smalltalk fans ought to go start companies.  Smalltalk has lots of
advantages in a startup, where it is important to get something
running quickly and where compatibility with existing systems is not
so important.  It doesn't work as well in a big company, where it is
iimportant to play it safe and there are existing standards and lots
of  existing systems.

Smalltalk is a wonderful language both for teaching and for research.
I've always wondered why it did so poorly in universities.  I think
that one of the reasons is that it is hard to learn.  There are too
many things about Smalltalk that are new.  The language is easy, but
the class libraries are large, and the programming environment is
different from what people are used to.  People are not used to "live
objects" and do not know how to take advantage of them.  The class
library is not modularized, so it is hard for newcomers to see what to
learn first.

Smalltalk is pretty easy to learn if you are pair programming with an
expert whose main goal is for you to learn, not to build a system.  It
is hard to learn from a book and from experimentation.  I taught
myself Smalltalk 20 years ago and have since taught it to a thousand
or so students.  I tell my students that they all will learn Smalltalk
faster than I did, because they will have a teacher.  This is not 100%
true, since some students didn't try very hard.  But it is pretty easy
to learn when you have a teacher who knows Smalltalk well.  One of the
problems with getting it used in schools is that somebody has to teach
the teachers.

So, if you want to help Smalltalk spread, sit down and program with a
newbie!

-Ralph Johnson


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Markus Gälli-3
In reply to this post by Alejandro F. Reimondo
I think with Smalltalk we made a huge step from the computer centric  
view of computing of

REPL (read / evaluate / print-loop), where
        _the computer_ reads in _text_
        evaluates it,
        and _prints it out text_ to the user

towards a human centric view of computing of what I might call

SEDL (select / evaluate / display-loop), where
        _the user_ is given some context to select a more specific context  
from,
        evaluates it,
        and gets a new context displayed to repeat the loop

Popup-Menus (do it/ print it), tree based browsers, drag n drop, and  
now Etoys are all a logical steps in the journey to follow this  
paradigm shift.

Compare it with the evolution of operating systems, where "in the  
beginning ... was the command line" (a phrase Neal Stephenson is not  
happy anymore with, I understood that he was bashing graphical OSses  
as they even did not allow to descend to the bare bones, which  
certainly should always be possible, he seems happy now with OS-X and  
its shells...) and now everything gets more and more shifted towards  
recognizing and selecting features - and not knowing by heart how to  
type them into some command shell.

We are not there yet, but I think that the editor bound people are  
far behind: I want trees/ drag n drop/ Etoy method-templates/  
examples and tabs for my programming - and certainly always be able  
to execute/debug/inspect/modify _anything_ at anytime.

Cheers,

Markus

On May 11, 2006, at 3:59 PM, Alejandro F. Reimondo wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> IMO we confuse people when we try to talk to them
>  using the same language, and words they use for
>  current tools.
> Some words we use and we *must* think about
>  the convenience to continue doing the same way
>  are:
>
> -Smalltalk as a (dynamic) language.
>  no comment now on the topic because I have
>  written on it in the past and no answer has been
>  received in this list (why?).
>  -I think it is one of the most important word to confuse
>  people and force them to do not think in other terms
>  than talking to a computer... (instead of building systems
>  or working in a non-declarative manner)
>
> -"Class"
>  aClass is an element of a formal theory, like aRule
>  but more complex.
>  Java, C++ and all other OOL use classes...
>  because they are languages and can be used *only*
>  declarativelly (in an object ORIENTED way).
>  We use (in Smalltalk) an expression for creating "classes",
>  but really we do not have classes, we have "SPECIES"
>  in smalltalk, because we can use smalltalk in other manner
>  than declarative ways, e.g. doing non-formal activities.
>  I say "sepcies" because they have organic relations
>  conforming an ambience (an open system where
>  evolution can be observed as a subproduct of systems
>  development -not planned- ).
>  Why we talk about "Classes" and not about Species?
>  Have we evaluated the cost of continue talking that way?
>  Why we talk about packages and not about organs
>      and organisms?
>
>  If we use the same words as scientist used for theory,
>  people will think in terms of known facts, and will
>  compare Smalltalk's syntax, frameworks or other
>  OO povs; but never will be interested in other topics.
>  (most smalltalkers use smalltalk as a very good IDE
>   and design using pieces of paper; and miss the
>   differences between non-formal design and informal
>   design)
>
> -Image
>  When we talk about "the image", people does not
>  understand the convenience of developing "applications"
>  that way.
>  But also we give people the idea of considering Smalltalk
>   as a container (of objects).
> This kind of argument is valuable for newbies, but must
>  be corrected early in the instruction process, because
>  inhibit people to undestand/realize activities on open
>  systems.
>  The concept of "living" system (I prefer the world "ambient"
>  to do not make analogies to nature)  let people put the
>  formal/declarative way of producing software in its
>  place and recognize that there are situations where
>  we need more than OO techniques to build systems.
>
> -Variables
>  we use the term "instance variable" for the collaborators
>  of an object.
>  The world variable has well known meaning in traditional
>   computing, and refers to a place in memory that
>  "varies" contents.
>  We put "names" to objects in smalltalk, but do not use
>   variables because we do not consider memory as a
>  directionable (through names nor numbres) device.
>
> -Assignment
>  we assign a name to an object in smalltalk
>   (we name objects) and the concept is not the same
>   of assigment of a value to a variable as in Pascal.
>
> -Evolution
>  when we talk about evolution, people understand the
>  term in a colloquial meaning, and most of the time consider
>  that evolution is something that can be produced (an object).
>  Evolution as an emergent/cocnecuence of the survival
>   of a system is something not "natural" for people (nor
>   for Darwin :-P )
>
> -Message & method
>  people talk about them without paying attention to the
>  differences; if we do not correct the ambiguity sooner
>  the words we say have diferent meaning.
>  If we do the correction, we must not continue talking
>  until sure about the listener undestood the concepts.
>  In both cases dialoge is broken and is not possible
>  to talk to an unknown/big audience.
>
> -Frameworks and engines
>  It is correct to talk about frameworks in Java and in Smalltalk,
>   because both are usefull to specify anstractions.
>  It is not correct to talk about machines (or engines, an
>   instantiation of a framework) in Java (or C++, or .Net)
>  because they are not ambiences and abstractions
>  are not used/present at the same time as running instances.
>
> -Code
>  When we talk about (source)code (or genetic code)
>   we are promoting to do not consider the convenience
>   to work with objects.
>  The same occurs when we say that smalltalk is "A/one"
>   language.
>  Smalltalk contains a native language, but can hold many
>   languages each for a diferent context...
>
> -object ORIENTATED
>  Smalltalk is not object oriented.
>  Java, C++, .net and other oo plataforms and decarative
>  languages are object "oriented" becasue you do not have
>  the object (the instance) to talk to.
>
> -information
>  people view information as anObject.
>  we can use the ambience to show taht there is another
>  ways of thinking about information (e.g. "information as aProcess")
> ( more on information:
>     http://www.truxton.com/~trux/etc/boi/
>     spanish version at
>     http://www.smalltalking.net/Papers/boi/boi.html
> )
>
> cheers,
> Ale.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marten Feldtmann" <[hidden email]>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 3:59 AM
> Subject: Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal
> (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}
>
>
>> Klaus D. Witzel schrieb:
>>
>>> Quote:
>>> Jonah Group principal consultant Jeremy Chan cannot verify a
>>> resurgence in  the use of the Smalltalk object-oriented language as
>>> indicated by Georg  Heeg at the recent Smalltalk Solutions  
>>> Conference,
>>> noting that none of his  company's customer requests exhibit a  
>>> desire
>>> for Smalltalk.
>>
>>
>>  I'm not sure, if Georg Heeg means "new" customers. Perhaps he sees
>> reactions
>> from old customers, who remember their investment into Smalltalk 8  
>> years
> ago
>> and these programs are running and runnning ... and now these  
>> customers
>> are updating their application with VW 7.x .
>>
>>  Another story I heard was, that these old customers realized, that
>> money is
>> short and its much cheaper to enhance their old running  
>> applications than
>> to rewrite it from scratch - not knowing, if this would work.
>>
>>  And another rumour was, that these "enhancements" are often against
>> company rules ("we do all with Java in the future") and these  
>> investments
>> are below a magical amount of money, where the local subsidaries of
>> these companies can do the enhancement investment without querying
>> the bosses of the IT departments in the main company.
>>
>>   Another little chance for Smalltalk (again ...) could be a  
>> reborn of
>> dynamically typed languages. I've heard a presentation about what
>> programming languages are missing today and in the future and one of
>> the major points was: meta programming facility. This does not mean
>> reflection as available in .NET or Java - but the powerful systems of
>> LISP and Smalltalk. Signals in this direction comes from some IBM
>> research laboratories and from the .net group from Microsoft.
>>
>>  Marten
>>
>> --
>> Marten Feldtmann - Germany - Software Development
>> Information regarding VA Smalltalk and DMS-system
>> "MSK - Mien Schrievkrom" at: www.schrievkrom.de
>>
>>
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Smalltalk: Requiem or Resurgence? {Dr. Dobb's Journal (05/06/06) Chan, Jeremy}

Klaus D. Witzel
In reply to this post by Ralph Johnson
Hi Ralph,

just in case you where not addressing my comments only but the subject in  
general:

On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:20:35 +0200, you <[hidden email]> wrote:

> People keep mentioning technical aspects of Smalltalk as being the
> ones that will make people want to use it.

I'm in the software business for quite some time, selling either  
solution+adaptation or else new+from+scratch, to small, medium and large  
organizations. When I look what we and the competitors throw in, it's all  
the same: innovation=technology and  
technology=what+makes+our+offer+better+than+theirs+even+if+initial+investment+is+huge.  
Not that I do advocate that, but it is how it works.

>  Technologists are
> interested in technology, so this is not surprising.

It is the innovation which makes buyers believe that your offer is better  
than other's. So we are called technologists <sic> but I have no problem  
with that.

> However, people
> are more important than technology.

Absolutely! But in competition, what counts is how many people the CIO or  
CTO can eliminate from the payroll, in contrast to whether or not they are  
more important than technology. I does not help if someone likes that or  
not.

>  If Smalltalk is going to have a
> resurgence, the people who know and love Smalltalk will have to make
> it happen.

I do not believe that Smalltalk needs a resurgence because a) it is vital  
and b) healthy and strong and c) it inherits these attributes from its  
community :-)

>  It isn't going to happen automatically.  Jeremy Chan is
> right to emphasize people problems like "no big company is pushing
> it".

This it not far away from what I wrote above.

So, let me try a conclusion: Smalltalk does not belong to the kind of  
technology (aka innovation) which implicitly or explicitly enables to  
scratch people from someone's payroll! !!

Right so :-D let's enjoy it :-))

Happy smalltalking everybody.

/Klaus


1234 ... 6