kilon.alios wrote > Porting code to JVM and Javascript has 3 issues > > a) you are no longer able to use the libraries of your popular > implementation (see Pharo) unless you wrap those libraries with something > like JNA (a ffi for JAVA) > b) most people would not use JVM unless if they have to and in most cases > it will be more likely their code will be written in JAVA so they use JAVA > c) JVM and Javascript languages are notorious for being slow , so once > again fall back to JAVA and Javascript
Indeed, many organizations have to use JVM, and yes, they probably fall back on Java because that's the "safe" choice. It doesn't mean that we can't persuade them to try Smalltalk. Redline makes it easier to interoperate with the existing Java infrastructure. If we can't convince these organizations that they'll be much more productive using Smalltalk over Java, and save tons of money /in the long run/, then how can we ever advance our agenda to the rest of the world?? BTW, JVM and JS aren't /that/ slow any more. They're so well-optimized that, for most use cases, performance is no longer an issue. I know because my brother Robert used to work at IBM (he just quit yesterday!). > So those language ported to JVM act mainly as scripting languages, you got > a JAVA app which is probably quite big and you port small parts of it to > that other language to make your code more managable and less verbose. So Scala, Groovy, and Clojure are used mainly as scripting languages? That's not what I hear. > So overall I doubt that Smalltalk will ever be a big hit on JVM or > Javascript. The problem with smalltalk that other languages dont have is > that it comes with an IDE , which is both a blessing and a curse. The last > time I checked Pharo was 200k lines of codes, that is huge for a dynamic > language. If we take out the IDE we lose a big advantage as developers, > add > to that the fact that other IDEs have very limited supported for Smalltalk > and you end up as a not so cool situation especially if you are used to > code in Pharo. This is something I have against with Amber. I don't expect Smalltalk to become a big hit on the JVM or JS, either. But if it proves to be as popular as Scala, I'd be very satisfied! Making Smalltalk available to other domains is not simply a matter of checking off boxes. Strategically, it shows Smalltalk's versatility and that it's not just a one-trick pony. Limiting ourselves to just desktop (or Seaside) applications is rather short-sighted. > So the ideal scenario is for someone to do what Rtalk promised but that > would requires someone or some coder with very deep knowledge of the JVM, > So dont hold your breath. I won't, which is precisely why I support James Ladd's efforts. > My choice is sticking with Pharo, sure Javascript and Java are nice sirens > singing an irresistible song but I am not willing to give up the comforts > of Pharo just so I have access to Java and Javascript libraries. Tempting > but not that tempting. Pharo is an excellent choice if you are a lone > coder and you want to be very productive which if you think of it is > completely diffirent to what the JVM aims for which is big coder groups > and > big companies. I certainly don't want to limit Smalltalk to just lone developers and small software houses. That's the very definition of "niche." > On the other hand if there is a real need for Smalltalk on JVM then sooner > or later someone will step up and start something. Right now from what I > see Clojure and Scala are the only two langauge that get some attention , > again nowhere near as much as other popular languages but they still > somewhat popular. The thing with Clojure is that is not just lisp on JVM , > there was already lisp for JVM called ABCL and never got popular, Clojure > became popular not because its lisp but because it targeted concurrency > and > made it easier . If Smalltalk is to become ever as popular it has to bring > something similar to the table and I think concurency would not be a bad > idea either especially for those that are not big fans of lisp syntax and > prefer something like Smalltalk. As I intimated previously in my list of essay topics for the Smalltalk community, I believe it's important for us to address concurrency in Smalltalk. Yes, it would not only be a good idea, it would be /essential/. I think there's a real need for Smalltalk on JVM, and Mr. Ladd has indeed stepped up. The real question is, who among you will help him? Generalissimo -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/InfoWorld-on-Redline-Smalltalk-tp4799678p4800179.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
