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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners > > >
_______________________________________________ Beginners mailing list Beginners@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners
