Technology of the technologies (WAS: A Lisper asks, "Am I supposed to like Smalltalk?")

Sebastián Sastre ssastre at
Wed May 17 23:09:48 UTC 2006

Dear all,

	I agree with you Colin. I think tht we should think in terms of
technology [see below*]I think that to be worried by number is to think as a
technology evangelizer wich I dont care about. I dont have any intention of
evangelize or convince anybody of anything (even a technology) just because
it is a dogmatic and manipulative thing to do. But I do have intention to
show to everybody the strengths of this technology are more than what it has
been shown to everybody until now. Smalltalk it's much more than a language
and it has a potential to be more than what we saw by now.

	I do think Smalltalk should give a reason strong enough to motivate
all the demotivation a newcomer could have. More than that... That reason
should not be just for that. I could/should exists for several motivations.

	I can think a reason that could do that: to marry Smalltalk with
assembler. A Smalltalk that makes it's compilations to machine code. 

	Imagine a Smalltalk that never will need a JITER because it's cache
is the L1 of the pentium (or other vendor architectures). The peek of the
eficiency in using the CPU hardware by software. Nothing the industry has
seen something near this before. I think Smalltalk are not as far osf this
as other techonogies are.

	Demistify once and for good speed and Smalltalk problem gets so
little that anybody will ever think in that again just because that
technology will have no match. At least not a reasonable one (you allways
could do in assembler everything, but think in making 3DStudio all in
assembler, it's insane).

	I think this technology is feasible with a considerable effort. More
than that I saw a little *proof of concept* of this idea based on a largely
modified squeak image. To give you an idea that limted prototype makes sends
about x54 times than Exuperys do. And please don't get me wrong, I do like
Exupery, but I think we could get a lot longer than that.
	Smalltalk will never be small again. A Smalltalk like that will be
the technology of the tecnologies for the software industry. People will
start to talk of IT sice this technology. It will became *a must* and will
be that just for it's owns strenghts, wich the most of them (99.99%) it
already has.

	I wanted to post this because I want to know if anybody has ever
thought about this and if so why it don't became a project. In the other
hand, if is the first time to think in this here, what do you think about
making Squeak to be married with assembler this way and what are the
posibilities of this group to make a project to materialize this?

	best regards,

Sebsatian Sastre

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: squeak-dev-bounces at 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at] En 
> nombre de Colin Putney
> Enviado el: Miércoles, 17 de Mayo de 2006 17:22
> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Asunto: Re: A Lisper asks, "Am I supposed to like Smalltalk?"
> On May 17, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> > I think our attitude is wrong, even if we're "right."  We 
> absolutely 
> > should enable more "traditional" approaches for doing Smalltalk 
> > programming.  If the Mountain won't come to Mohammed, then Mohammed 
> > must go to the Mountain.
> I like the attitude, but I think it's really tough in 
> practice. I see two problems:
> 1) The tools for doing "traditional" programming would have 
> to be implemented by fairly adept Smalltalkers. This means 
> that they're working on tools based in a paradigm they don't 
> themselves share.  
> They'd be creating tools they have no interest in using. 
> Who's going to want to put effort into that, and who could do it well?
> 2) The reasons Smalltalk is good are basically the same as 
> the reasons it's different. If we enable newcomers to retain 
> their old habits and coding style, are we really doing them a 
> service? We just make it that much less likely they'll learn 
> the Smalltalk way, and ultimately give them no reason to use 
> Smalltalk at all. Heck, if you want a more "traditional" 
> version of Smalltalk, just use Ruby. The syntax is a little 
> awkward, but otherwise, it's all there.
> Colin

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list