Hi all, an argument for Smalltalk, an discussion coming up many times in my history. It is also something I'm asking myself from time to time. It is very actual in the moment.
Many good arguments were mentioned this discussion. I want to provide you my 2 cents on this. First, I'm taking the view of an hobby enthusiast. That's were I started. All the time I was excited by the Smalltalk concept. Live debugging, VM system, the possibility to look at and understand every code from systems completely new to me was so great. No installation, and nice people in the community. Conclusion: I want to do all in Smalltalk. Elegance is what rules only. Now, I'm in the perspective of an employed software developer. Everywhere that crazy C++, sometimes Fortran or C. Delphi. The people told "that's old, that was the beginning years ago, that is given, we have nothing else". And we have no time to redesign or port to something better, so fate catched us and we have to continue on the road to hell..... Most of my life colleagues were physicists who learned C++ for its thesis, or engineers of the embedded domain. No or only a few computer scientists. The rule now on these days: get ready, it should work somehow, costs. Elegance or sound design is no value. Not at this time. SW is just a part of my component as any screw and nail too. Continuing as a team leader. My goal is to fit budget. I have some time, and I have some people in the team. And I have to report and sell to my manager above me. I'm looking for get the job done, but I have also some strategic view. I've read some articles about this new .Net, with big potential, many libraries. Easy Web. Web is the future. I ask my team how to solve the task. Ony guy talks about Pearl. I hat Pearl. Another colleagues tells something about Smalltalk. Never heared of it, I ask if this is compatible to .Net.... My rules of success are in what I belief - and what can I sell to my big boss. And I belief only what I see... I could continue this. My point is: the Smalltalk Argument is depending on the perspective. And therefore, to communicate and argue about Smalltalk is what the receiver of the argument needs. Superiour technique can be an argument, but not always. Missing developer can be an argument, but not in every company and every project. My personal conclusion and look to Smalltalk is this: - for my soul which want to bring science and technology to the future, I look at the elegance and power of Smalltalk. That's why I'm looking at TeaTime and OpenCroquet again in the age of AR. - if I want to learn from top coders, the way of developing in Smalltalk (live debugging) - if I want to get a job done (for example a web site), I'm looking what the world offers me. And it may not be Smalltalk. In my current work, Game Engines matter. So coding a Game Engine in Smalltalk ? May be, but there are a lot of good products already... Having said that, the Smalltalk Argument has to sides, and they have both their value: - Smalltalk as an technique, as a matter of research and getting things better, an philosophy - Smalltalk as a product for people who want things get done. My personal opinion is that sometimes the point Smalltalk (or better now: Pharo) as a product is not so much in concern as it could. Pharo evolved wonderfully, the consortium and the organisation and the community have the right direction, yes. But as an industrial user of software I only can hope: keep the Smalltalk as a Product in the same focus as Smalltalk as the better technology. And product means: look at the needs the product is indented for, look at the "market". What are the problems out there ? If you can fit the needs, and provide a productive and integrable technology, you need no argument for Smalltalk. Off topic: thanks for the big effort of the community, it is really really fun today to work on and with Pharo. Much happend, and much is possible ;) Cheers Hans -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
