Done.
I have some possible myths, but I'd like to confirm or reject:
- All Smalltalk bytecode sets are stack-based VM. (?)
While there might be some implementations that use a register based bytecode set I've never heard of one. I do know of a few implementations that don't use bytecode at all.
- Bytecodes are always fixed-size. (?)
False.
- Most of the time spent by a VM is in the instruction interpreter. (actually it's in the GC right?)
Neither. In a JIT VM most time is spent executing Smalltalk code. GC overheads vary depending on workload, typically in the range 1% to 50% (typically for specially constructed benchmarks written to stress the GC).
- You cannot serialize objects containing blocks. (IIRC one can use MessageSends)
False.
- Image cannot be bootstrapped. (This is possible in ST/X and now in Pharo I think).
False.
- All Smalltalks includes UI classes. (GemStone doesn't have AFAIK).
False.
- All implementations uses direct pointers, (GST?)
False. VisualWorks uses indirection pointers. Xerox Smalltalk-80 implementations used indirection. But many modern implementations use direct pointers.
- All implementations uses green threads. (VAST? MT?)
False. SmalltalkMT. But still mostly true. VAST & VW have green threads and a threaded FFI.
I'm sure people in this list will have a lot more myths heard from Conferences, Forums, Videos, Talks, etc. Like the guy who said Smalltalk was dead. So if you did something which could be ignored publicly, please don't hesitate to reply or ping me to get added as collaborator.
Cheers,
Hernán
Hi Hernán,
Hi there,
I just created a GitHub repo to collect myths around Smalltalk-based technologies: Pharo, Squeak, VW, VAST, Smalltalk/X, GNU/ST, etc. in the spirit of the Falsehoods lists [1-4].
This is just a draft now but please feel free to add falsehoods based on your own experiences. Examples are greatly appreciated.
You want pull requests? If not, would you give me write permission? I'd love to add to the "Smalltalk is obsolete" section...
--