[Newbies] [semi-OT] (fwd) Re: What Killed Smalltalk?

Andre Fernandes fernandes.andre at gmail.com
Tue Nov 17 10:33:40 UTC 2009

I guess that what killed smalltalk is that it was too advanced for the time
it started.
That´s the same that happened to Lisp. Languages ahead of its time, great
fantastic tools for a programmer work, but way too advanced for its time.

2009/11/17 Benjamin L. Russell <DekuDekuplex at yahoo.com>

> There was an interesting post on comp.lang.smalltalk which, although
> semi-off-topic (it concerns Smalltalk as a language, rather than
> Squeak as an implementation specifically), reveals some of the
> misunderstandings that many industry professionals have toward
> Smalltalk in general.
> The main portion of the message consists of a "(virtual) conversation
> between a decision maker and a Smalltalk programmer."  It seems that
> many of these misunderstandings (with the exception of the one related
> to speed, since Squeak is actually quite fast) relate to Squeak as
> well.
> Any comments?
>  A forwarded copy of that post follows:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:15:17 +0100, in comp.lang.smalltalk Guido
> Stepken <gstepken at googlemail.com> wrote:
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> Truth schrieb:
>  > After watching http://railsconf.blip.tv/file/2089545/ I have to
>  > respond - somewhere.  Smalltalk died of a hundred cuts.
> Oh, yes, i really enjoyed watching this.
> I think, smalltalk died a lack of communication what smalltalk really
> is:
> Smalltalk is a 'reflection language' about and written in itself,
> represented by a bunch of - RAM floating - 'set of activities' - often
> miscalled 'objects', communicating like a neuronal network with itself
> and with its programmers, with the possibility to put/freeze that in a
> single file, called 'image'.
> Just to make that a bit more transparent, here a (virtual)
> conversation
> between a decision maker and a Smalltalk programmer:
> DM: "Please show me: What have you programmed last years? Where are
> your
> libraries? Where's your code contribution?"
> - "Sorry, there are no libraries! We have source, yes! My code?
> Somewhere within the spittoon of Smalltalk - code. There are no
> libraries. They're called 'image'. Can't say, what code i have
> contributed in the last years."
> "Ok! And where's our data?"
> - "Sorry, there is no data!"
> "But there must be our data somewhere. Experts say and Oracle sais, we
> need a 'data warehouse'. We will have to put all our data into a
> central
> database!"
> - "Sorry - we have no data, no code - we have 'objects'!"
> "Ok. I understand. Can you store those 'objects' in Oracle?"
> - "Hmmm. No! Does not make any sense."
> "I understand. But all the other programmers say, of course, every
> programming language is about code and data and state variables!"
> - "Sorry, no! Smalltalk is a different thing. We even don't have
> 'states'"
> "Ok, I see, we have to change to Java or to C++ to get that mismatch
> solved."
> - "There is no need to switch to other languages. We are quite
> productive!"
> "Ok, maybe. But the board of directors urge me to introduce a central
> 'data warehouse' on Oracle. Experts say, that's what all companies
> need
> nowadays!"
> - "No need to introduce Oracle. We even can control a whole production
> plant with Smalltalk! Statistics included. They're done on the fly."
> "Without central data warehouse? Without Crystal Report, SPSS, Excel?"
> - "Yes! I can simply code that into Smalltalk"
> "But the other programmers say: 'Smalltalk is slow!' You even can't
> control a production plant with one single C++ programm! You need
> fast 'real time operating systems' and 'real time program language',
> all
> experts say that!"
> - "Yes, Smalltalk is much slower. And Smalltalk is no 'real time
> system'. But it works fine since many years!"
> "Hmmm. Sounds very unrealistic! A whole production plant controlled by
> one pentium processor. Ridiculous! By the way: Does Smalltalk 'scale'?
> - "Hmmm. No!"
> "Our controlling sais - They need to do their own statistics on
> Crystal
> Report, SPSS, Excel. They want to make nice productivity charts! Can
> they get their own ODBC - Interface - secured by password - to access
> data within the 'Smalltalk Image'?"
> - "Hmmm. No. There is no such interface. But i simply could add some
> counting variables in Smalltalk."
> "No, thanx. Our controlling uses sequel! We have paid a lot to teach
> them how to make nice production charts with Excel, CR, SPSS and
> POWERPOINT, of course! Now you say, the have to learn 'Smalltalk'? No!
> They are no programmers! They are controllers! They have to control
> you!
> Ok. Conclusion: We probably run into many troubles, if we don't switch
> to a central data warehouse and a modern progamming language, that
> 'scales', like JAVA or C++. All experts say - we need central data
> warehouse, advanced controlling in production, near realtime
> statistics
> via ODBC-access, RT-OS.
> By the way - Can you accellerate Smalltalk code by 'inline assembler',
> like in C++?"
> - "Can you accelerate your brain by 'inline assembler'? Does it
> scale?"
> "You are fired!"
> Just my 2ct.
> Have fun,
> Guido Stepken
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> -- Benjamin L. Russell
> --
> Benjamin L. Russell  /   DekuDekuplex at Yahoo dot com
> http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/
> Translator/Interpreter<http://dekudekuplex.wordpress.com/%0ATranslator/Interpreter>/ Mobile:  +011 81 80-3603-6725
> "Furuike ya, kawazu tobikomu mizu no oto."
> -- Matsuo Basho^
> _______________________________________________
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

André de Camargo Fernandes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/beginners/attachments/20091117/e3ff34a4/attachment.htm

More information about the Beginners mailing list