Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
Locked
12
12
 
|
My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but Smalltalk
is as a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS.
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
Hi,
From its history, its goal(for example the dynabook), its byproduct (for example, the GUI, the trigger of the mouse). Smalltalk and Squeak give us much more than a OS or a programming langugae. BTW: Have you head of the SqueakNOS recently? Its greate On 8/8/06, 啸然 <[hidden email]> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
In reply to this post by 啸然
I thought a lot about this, because I really like Smalltalk and cannot
understand why so many others don't see in it the beauty I see. Unfortunately, I did not come to any *serious* conclusion. Most new languages keep taking ideas from Smalltalk, but as you say, Smalltalk is really far from being widely accepted. Some of the important issues, probably are: 1. The environment. Most programmers just don't get used to this. They feel as being tightly coupled to a feature that, for them, should be decoupled. This probably holds "some" truth, since being as it is, smalltalk has to do a lot of things that are typically an OS responsibility. OSs are usually more mature and resolve very well a lot of things. The other drawback that most programmers see in using smalltalk with its environment is that the GUI is not integrated to the OS GUI. This is not true, particularly if you use some of the commercial Smalltalk dialects that support it, but again, most programmers I know don't know about this. They always think of Smalltalk with it's environment. Most of them even think that you can't even build a server that runs without the GUI (headless). So, a lot of this might be due to disinformation 2. Openness For a language to be successful today, it has to be open, distributable and then accepted by "the community". This is the case of Python, Ruby, etc. Java is seriously suffering from not being open, and now, they will probably open it. I have not followed it closely, but I believe Squeak had some licencing issues until not so long ago, and the other free Smalltalks (GNU) are not as good as Squeak. Probably the list is longer, and everyone may not agree with me on those issues. What I sadly believe by now is that, if Smalltalk didn't make it in the last 25 years, it will not make it in the future. There is no reason for this to change, I believe that smalltalk has not had many substantial changes in the last decade). So my plan is sticking to this small but talented and friendly community :) I don't think it is going to change a lot. The biggest risk of having a small community (squeak), probably, is that guys who really know Squeak, which are a few, might get tired of hacking enormous amounts of hours for it to evolve little by little, for the rest of the fellows. For me, Squeak evolves a lot, but it is still a little/slow evolution. This is also a consequence of the small community. If you see squeak's GUI and dev tools (editors, debugger, etc.) they really look at least a decade old, and are behind the tools available for other languages. This might also be an issue about the little acceptance. Just my 2 cents. Bye r. On 8/8/06, 啸然 <[hidden email]> wrote: > My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but Smalltalk is as > a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS. > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > > > _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
Another thing.
I believe Seaside is giving smalltalk the biggest opportunity of an overcome it had in years. May be Seaside can spark the long awaited adoption :) On 8/8/06, Ramiro Diaz Trepat <[hidden email]> wrote: > I thought a lot about this, because I really like Smalltalk and cannot > understand why so many others don't see in it the beauty I see. > Unfortunately, I did not come to any *serious* conclusion. > Most new languages keep taking ideas from Smalltalk, but as you say, > Smalltalk is really far from being widely accepted. > > Some of the important issues, probably are: > > 1. The environment. > Most programmers just don't get used to this. They feel as being > tightly coupled to a feature that, for them, should be decoupled. > This probably holds "some" truth, since being as it is, smalltalk has > to do a lot of things that are typically an OS responsibility. OSs > are usually more mature and resolve very well a lot of things. > The other drawback that most programmers see in using smalltalk with > its environment is that the GUI is not integrated to the OS GUI. This > is not true, particularly if you use some of the commercial Smalltalk > dialects that support it, but again, most programmers I know don't > know about this. They always think of Smalltalk with it's > environment. Most of them even think that you can't even build a > server that runs without the GUI (headless). > So, a lot of this might be due to disinformation > > 2. Openness > For a language to be successful today, it has to be open, > distributable and then accepted by "the community". This is the case > of Python, Ruby, etc. Java is seriously suffering from not being > open, and now, they will probably open it. > I have not followed it closely, but I believe Squeak had some > licencing issues until not so long ago, and the other free Smalltalks > (GNU) are not as good as Squeak. > > Probably the list is longer, and everyone may not agree with me on those issues. > What I sadly believe by now is that, if Smalltalk didn't make it in > the last 25 years, it will not make it in the future. There is no > reason for this to change, I believe that smalltalk has not had many > substantial changes in the last decade). > So my plan is sticking to this small but talented and friendly > community :) I don't think it is going to change a lot. > The biggest risk of having a small community (squeak), probably, is > that guys who really know Squeak, which are a few, might get tired of > hacking enormous amounts of hours for it to evolve little by little, > for the rest of the fellows. > For me, Squeak evolves a lot, but it is still a little/slow evolution. > This is also a consequence of the small community. If you see > squeak's GUI and dev tools (editors, debugger, etc.) they really look > at least a decade old, and are behind the tools available for other > languages. This might also be an issue about the little acceptance. > Just my 2 cents. > Bye > > > r. > > > On 8/8/06, 啸然 <[hidden email]> wrote: > > My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but Smalltalk is as > > a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS. > > _______________________________________________ > > Beginners mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
In reply to this post by 啸然
ХȻ wrote:
My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but Smalltalk is as a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS.Another reason is because no one else is. Most people are followers, not leaders. --
Brad Fuller Sonaural Audio Studio +1 (408) 799-6124 Hear us online www.Sonaural.com See me on O'Reilly _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
RE: Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramiro Diaz Trepat
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of Ramiro Diaz Trepat > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 4:21 PM > To: A friendly place to get answers to even the most basic > questions about Squeak. > Subject: Re: Re: [Newbies] Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted? > > Another thing. > I believe Seaside is giving smalltalk the biggest opportunity > of an overcome it had in years. > May be Seaside can spark the long awaited adoption :) It already is! _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by 啸然
Perhaps because it's intended audience or purpose has little to do
with what "real" programmers are interested in? Which would be a shame because it seems pretty clear that whatever those interests are they haven't done a great deal to advance the practice very much. ---Rick PS: "real" is in quotes up there. No troll intended. On Aug 8, 2006, at 2:17 AM, 啸然 wrote: > My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but > Smalltalk is as a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS. > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
In reply to this post by 啸然
Because the primary vendor for Smalltak - ParcPlace Systems, pursued
a strategy of maximizing profit per user instead of profit overall. In its heyday, VisualWorks cost something like $3000 per user and so almost nobody could afford to learn it unless they could do it on the job at their employer's expense. Even the academic license was something like $500 - pretty steep for a student. Nevertheless, IBM had invested heavily in Smalltalk as a replacement for COBOL. IBM had VisualAge Smalltalk running on every piece of hardware they sold from Mainframes down to PCs. The value proposition they intended to offer was that companies could write systems in VAST, then buy hardware according to their scaling requirements. Outgrow your system? Just move up to a larger machine. They could have been very successful with this, but Sun released Java and made it clear they would spend BIG on promoting it to make it successful. IBM didn't see competing as sensible and figured it would be cheaper to just build Java tools using VAST and use that for their scalable app platform. This was seen as a win because IBM would not have to spend to promote their new development platform. Java gained ground because anyone who wanted to try it could just download it and learn it. This wasn't possible with Smalltalk - so nobody learned it. At least, this is how things looked to me as an enterprise systems architect in the mid-1990's. On Aug 8, 2006, at 2:17 AM, 啸然 wrote: > My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but > Smalltalk is as a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS. > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:17:58 +0200, Todd Blanchard wrote:
> Because the primary vendor for Smalltak - ParcPlace Systems, pursued a > strategy of maximizing profit per user instead of profit overall. In > its heyday, VisualWorks cost something like $3000 per user and so almost > nobody could afford to learn it unless they could do it on the job at > their employer's expense. Even the academic license was something like > $500 - pretty steep for a student. > ... > Java gained ground because anyone who wanted to try it could just > download it and learn it. This wasn't possible with Smalltalk - so > nobody learned it. See, it was necessary to attach a very large price tag to Smalltalk for getting an idea of Java's value (value := price tag in this case ;-) Seriously, I believe this cause-and-effect. > At least, this is how things looked to me as an enterprise systems > architect in the mid-1990's. I agree, same experience here. But the story about VAST and COBOL was: sales rep #1 "what's this small talk thingy good for?"; sales rep #2 "replacing COBOL?!". The COBOL landscape was, by that time, the largest and replacing any COBOL system by anything else meant more $$$ for the sales rep than she/he could imagine to earn by selling something else. /Klaus _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by rkitts
> > >> My opinion is, the power of Smalltalk is same as an OS, but Smalltalk >> is as a programming language. The Smalltalk should be an OS. Newbies list, so all is possible ;-) ! I think the question for us is : what's the difference between a programming language and an OS? OS for me is different of a programming language (hardware aspect, file manager,network and security layout....)! it's not your opinion... why? _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by tblanchard
> > Java gained ground because anyone who wanted to try it could just > download it and learn it. This wasn't possible with Smalltalk - so > nobody learned it. > > At least, this is how things looked to me as an enterprise systems > architect in the mid-1990's. This was the picture pre 1995 I think, since then... Other smalltalk vendors came into the market. Smalltalk Agents was about 300 pounds in 1994. Squeak was free in 1996, Dolphin was free initially also in about 1996. When I wanted to write an industrial strength project I downloaded ST/X for free and although some sources were missing I could certainly learn enough and demonstrate enough to justify using it on a project. If you ask any programmer in the UK, "what about Dolphin" I think that you will get a blank look. Its all down to marketing marketing and more marketing. Even my grannie probably knows that Java is a progamming language. Having said this, because Smalltalk is relatively easy to learn once you are over the initial learning cliff, people have not seen the value in good documentation. Pick any product that you wish to learn, go to your local book shop and see what is there. "The Pragmatic PRogrammer" was a book about ruby, and that book single handedly launched ruby into the mainstream, without the hype that surrounded java. Smalltalk has lacked bookshelf presence, and I think that as soon as Seaside gets a book out there that O'Reilly puts an animal on the front of it the better. just my 2p Keith ___________________________________________________________ Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
In reply to this post by tblanchard
> > Java gained ground because anyone who wanted to try it could just > download it and learn it. This wasn't possible with Smalltalk - so > nobody learned it. > > At least, this is how things looked to me as an enterprise systems > architect in the mid-1990's. This was the picture pre 1995 I think, since then... Other smalltalk vendors came into the market. Smalltalk Agents was about 300 pounds in 1994. Squeak was free in 1996, Dolphin was free initially also in about 1996. When I wanted to write an industrial strength project I downloaded ST/X for free and although some sources were missing I could certainly learn enough and demonstrate enough to justify using it on a project. If you ask any programmer in the UK, "what about Dolphin" I think that you will get a blank look. Its all down to marketing marketing and more marketing. Even my grannie probably knows that Java is a progamming language. Having said this, because Smalltalk is relatively easy to learn once you are over the initial learning cliff, people have not seen the value in good documentation. Pick any product that you wish to learn, go to your local book shop and see what is there. "The Pragmatic PRogrammer" was a book about ruby, and that book single handedly launched ruby into the mainstream, without the hype that surrounded java. Smalltalk has lacked bookshelf presence, and I think that as soon as Seaside gets a book out there that O'Reilly puts an animal on the front of it the better. just my 2p Keith ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
Hi,
another 2 cents. Albeit I agree with what Keith writes, I doubt it's really just marketing. I believe that is true for practitioners, for whom I do not have any experience. I do have some experience with students, though, both at undergraduate and graduate level. Students have mostly accepted it as a powerful programming language and appreciated its elegance and simplicity, and the standard library's strength. They have objected to three things: dynamic typing, access control, and the image. Dynamic typing... well, once they were shown how programming works in a Smalltalk environment (incremental application development, debugging, inspecting, ...), they got over that. They even accepted that message parameters' types are "declared" using naming conventions. ;-) Access control... again, once they were introduced to the idioms, it went better, though some of them still had a bad feeling in the stomach. They agreed with member variables being private by default, but they objected to all messages being public. The image... *that* I could not fully convince them of so far. Maybe it's my fault. If anybody has a great convincing collection of slides, I'd love to see it. - Anyway, I have the feeling that what they disliked most about it was that the concept of "compilation unit" or "unit of execution" is not as definite as in, say, Java, which they know better. Best, Michael _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
Indeed, in ST/X it is possible to write a method in C and have it
dynamically compiled an loaded into the running image. There is your "compilation unit", albeit at a smaller level of granularity than most are used to; the rest of the image is "runtime-engine". I think that 10 years ago people sneared at runtime libraries over 1Mb, now with average user software like Mozilla which include "images/vms/runtimes/memory managers" of their own, I think that the concept is more acceptable. It seems to me that the acceptability criteria appears to be related to operating system integration. If microsoft adds a vm runtime engine to the OS, then it gains instant acceptability. Java promised the same. Smalltalkers tend to ignore the OS for the most part, which does not endear the faithful Microsoft Certified Professional. (But it does make for robust code if the VM is robust... now that should have been the killer selling point on Windows for sure!) Again in ST/X, if you want to you can manage all of your code as source in CVS and have it compiled and load on start up into a running application, without an image per se. All things are possible. But who knows about these things, not every IT professional has time to try these things out, which is where I think the books come in. I wonder how many armchair java programmers there are? Keith > The image... *that* I could not fully convince them of so far. Maybe > it's my fault. If anybody has a great convincing collection of slides, > I'd love to see it. - Anyway, I have the feeling that what they > disliked most about it was that the concept of "compilation unit" or > "unit of execution" is not as definite as in, say, Java, which they > know better. > > Best, > > Michael > _ ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramiro Diaz Trepat
>I thought a lot about this, because I really like Smalltalk and cannot
>understand why so many others don't see in it the beauty I see. >Unfortunately, I did not come to any *serious* conclusion. >Most new languages keep taking ideas from Smalltalk, but as you say, >Smalltalk is really far from being widely accepted. Smalltalk is a wonderful language which influenced software developing gravely. 1. GUI -> MacOS, m$ Windows, X Windows.... 2. OOP -> Self, Java, Python, Ruby...... I think the thought of Smalltalk should be the right way of developing software. >Some of the important issues, probably are: > >1. The environment. >Most programmers just don't get used to this. They feel as being >tightly coupled to a feature that, for them, should be decoupled. >This probably holds "some" truth, since being as it is, smalltalk has >to do a lot of things that are typically an OS responsibility. OSs >are usually more mature and resolve very well a lot of things. >The other drawback that most programmers see in using smalltalk with >its environment is that the GUI is not integrated to the OS GUI. This >is not true, particularly if you use some of the commercial Smalltalk >dialects that support it, but again, most programmers I know don't >know about this. They always think of Smalltalk with it's >server that runs without the GUI (headless). >So, a lot of this might be due to disinformation It's looks more like a OS that Smalltalk has it's own environment. But, an OS creator would not like to see an "OS" in his OS. So, Smalltalk itself should be an OS, not only a language. >2. Openness >For a language to be successful today, it has to be open, >distributable and then accepted by "the community". This is the case >of Python, Ruby, etc. Java is seriously suffering from not being >open, and now, they will probably open it. >I have not followed it closely, but I believe Squeak had some >licencing issues until not so long ago, and the other free Smalltalks >(GNU) are not as good as Squeak. Squeak is open source for several years, but the situation has not changed so much. >Probably the list is longer, and everyone may not agree with me on those issues. >What I sadly believe by now is that, if Smalltalk didn't make it in >the last 25 years, it will not make it in the future. There is no >reason for this to change, I believe that smalltalk has not had many >substantial changes in the last decade). >So my plan is sticking to this small but talented and friendly >community :) I don't think it is going to change a lot. >The biggest risk of having a small community (squeak), probably, is >that guys who really know Squeak, which are a few, might get tired of >hacking enormous amounts of hours for it to evolve little by little, >for the rest of the fellows. >For me, Squeak evolves a lot, but it is still a little/slow evolution. > This is also a consequence of the small community. If you see >squeak's GUI and dev tools (editors, debugger, etc.) they really look >at least a decade old, and are behind the tools available for other >languages. This might also be an issue about the little acceptance. >Just my 2 cents. >Bye Maybe it's a way that let Smalltalk to be an OS which not base on the concept of OS in existence. Smalltalk put all things into one image file, so it needn't "include", "import", or "use" instruction. I imagine such a Smalltalk OS: 1. Creat a file system for this OS according to Smalltalk class structure( a tree ), it could be called "OOFS", and divide up the image file to small block( a bytecode file, like an exe file) which belong a class. Load a block file when our programs need, instead of load one image file at bootup time. 2. Improve the memory management of Smalltalk (GC), so that it could deal with the realtime requiring. This is my jejune idea. Xiaoran 在06-8-9，Ramiro Diaz Trepat <[hidden email]> 写道：
I thought a lot about this, because I really like Smalltalk and cannot _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by keith1y
When I get home(and if the weather isn't too nice) I play with Squeak.
But when I go to work, I write Java(like a lot of people on this list, I'd imagine). One of the things that prevents me from even considering it at work is the lack of Oracle driver support. Of course, I could write that support myself using named primitives(and I've tried), but the documentation on how to use all the modern Slang features and tie the whole thing into XCode is much too sparse. When this changes I might be able to use squeak for more than just amusement. On 8/9/06, Keith Hodges <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Java gained ground because anyone who wanted to try it could just > > download it and learn it. This wasn't possible with Smalltalk - so > > nobody learned it. > > > > At least, this is how things looked to me as an enterprise systems > > architect in the mid-1990's. > This was the picture pre 1995 I think, since then... > > Other smalltalk vendors came into the market. Smalltalk Agents was about > 300 pounds in 1994. Squeak was free in 1996, Dolphin was free initially > also in about 1996. When I wanted to write an industrial strength > project I downloaded ST/X for free and although some sources were > missing I could certainly learn enough and demonstrate enough to justify > using it on a project. > > If you ask any programmer in the UK, "what about Dolphin" I think that > you will get a blank look. Its all down to marketing marketing and more > marketing. Even my grannie probably knows that Java is a progamming > language. > > Having said this, because Smalltalk is relatively easy to learn once you > are over the initial learning cliff, people have not seen the value in > good documentation. > > Pick any product that you wish to learn, go to your local book shop and > see what is there. "The Pragmatic PRogrammer" was a book about ruby, and > that book single handedly launched ruby into the mainstream, without the > hype that surrounded java. Smalltalk has lacked bookshelf presence, and > I think that as soon as Seaside gets a book out there that O'Reilly puts > an animal on the front of it the better. > > just my 2p > > Keith > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Inbox full of spam? Get leading spam protection and 1GB storage with All New Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:43:46 +0200, Michael Kohout wrote:
> When I get home(and if the weather isn't too nice) I play with Squeak. > But when I go to work, I write Java(like a lot of people on this > list, I'd imagine). 8-) > One of the things that prevents me from even considering it at work is > the lack of Oracle driver support. Of course, I could write that > support myself using named primitives(and I've tried), but the > documentation on how to use all the modern Slang features and tie the > whole thing into XCode is much too sparse. > > When this changes I might be able to use squeak for more than just > amusement. Michael, have you seen the SQLite3 package on SqueakMap. It is more than easy to interface an external library from Squeak, no Slang, no C-compiler needed (if you don't depend on callbacks). The SQLite3 Squeak code is authored for calling into an external library on Mac OS X but it's a matter of minutes to change that to MS$ windoze or linux (I know that you're using Squeak on OS X...) Hope that it's a rainy day at your site ;-) /Klaus _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
Thanks for the tip Klaus.
I'll definitely be able to use this on my desktop mac, but it still doesn't overcome my problems of getting at the company's oracle databases. Maybe when I get home today, I'll dust off my nonworking plugin and ask for help on the vm list( while the docs for squeak suffer, all the user's help has been really great ). Mike Kohout Developer www.mnscu.edu On 8/10/06, Klaus D. Witzel <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:43:46 +0200, Michael Kohout wrote: > > > When I get home(and if the weather isn't too nice) I play with Squeak. > > But when I go to work, I write Java(like a lot of people on this > > list, I'd imagine). > > 8-) > > > One of the things that prevents me from even considering it at work is > > the lack of Oracle driver support. Of course, I could write that > > support myself using named primitives(and I've tried), but the > > documentation on how to use all the modern Slang features and tie the > > whole thing into XCode is much too sparse. > > > > When this changes I might be able to use squeak for more than just > > amusement. > > Michael, have you seen the SQLite3 package on SqueakMap. It is more than > easy to interface an external library from Squeak, no Slang, no C-compiler > needed (if you don't depend on callbacks). The SQLite3 Squeak code is > authored for calling into an external library on Mac OS X but it's a > matter of minutes to change that to MS$ windoze or linux (I know that > you're using Squeak on OS X...) > > Hope that it's a rainy day at your site ;-) > > /Klaus > > _______________________________________________ > Beginners mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
|
|
In reply to this post by Klaus D. Witzel
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:58:54 -0700, Klaus D. Witzel
<[hidden email]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:43:46 +0200, Michael Kohout wrote: > >> When I get home(and if the weather isn't too nice) I play with Squeak. >> But when I go to work, I write Java(like a lot of people on this >> list, I'd imagine). > > 8-) I can pretty much choose whatever I want to work in. I'm looking for an "in" for Smalltalk, but I have to interact with a lot of MS products.... _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
Re: Why hasn't Smalltalk been wildly accepted?
|
|
Hi Blake,
on Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:48:58 +0200, you wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 05:58:54 -0700, Klaus D. Witzel > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 14:43:46 +0200, Michael Kohout wrote: >> >>> When I get home(and if the weather isn't too nice) I play with Squeak. >>> But when I go to work, I write Java(like a lot of people on this >>> list, I'd imagine). >> >> 8-) > > I can pretty much choose whatever I want to work in. I'm looking for an > "in" for Smalltalk, but I have to interact with a lot of MS products.... Then, how about doing something for the opposite direction, Squeak as a COM-server (like MS$ had done the Java extensions in their MSJAVA VM)? See for example - http://www.visoracle.com/squeakfaq/com-activex.html which mentions the Squeak .NET bridge from SqueakMap. /Klaus _______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners |
«
Return to Squeak - Beginners
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |