Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
> No, not at all, any editor you're comfortable with will do. Emacs has just > one advantage over everything else, and that's the fact that the syntax > highlighting for GST for Emacs is included in the repo. Actually, the more up-to-date code for that is in the GNU ELPA repository (https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/smalltalk-mode.html), AFAIK. But it's also arguably easier to install (it's a simple `M-x package-install` away). And it offers a fair bit more than syntax highlighting. > The syntax is minimal and rather regular, so it should be very easy to > add support for it to your editor if it lacks it. There are Smalltalk support packages for most editors out there, AFAICT. I don't know how much support they provide beyond the basic syntax highlighting, tho (indentation?). Stefan
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
Indeed. We should promote 3.2.91 to 3.3.0 and cope with VisualGST being slightly broken (it's based on GTK+ 2.0 anyway). Let me aim to do this before the end of the year. holger > On 14. Nov 2021, at 09:11, bill-auger wrote: > > FWIW, the history of smalltralk is lined with arguments such that > it is an evolutionary dead-end, - the rationales have shifted > drastically and continuously over the years; but guess what, > smalltalk is still here and still evolving > > WRT GNU smalltalk, those distros with a broken GST are using the > most recent release; but it has bit-rot, and requires some > routine maintenance upstream - the team should consider > promoting 3.2.91 to a release, before GNU smalltalk gets removed > from debian, for example - arch has been packaging 3.2.91 for > years >
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
FWIW, the history of smalltralk is lined with arguments such that it is an evolutionary dead-end, - the rationales have shifted drastically and continuously over the years; but guess what, smalltalk is still here and still evolving WRT GNU smalltalk, those distros with a broken GST are using the most recent release; but it has bit-rot, and requires some routine maintenance upstream - the team should consider promoting 3.2.91 to a release, before GNU smalltalk gets removed from debian, for example - arch has been packaging 3.2.91 for years
RE: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
I use Visual Studio Code with GNU Smalltalk. There’s actually a very good Smalltalk syntax highlighter for the language. Sent from Mail for Windows From: s...@pandora.beSent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 5:51 AMTo: Sam LeeCc: help-smalltalkSubject: Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead? There is no problem to create files with "vi" or "pico" and use them with "GNU smalltalk",there is something more subtle like overall product philosophy or 'personal touch',that is harder to get the same when the original author certainly preferred GNU emacs (I think). Regards,David Stes - Op 13 nov 2021 om 10:50 schreef Sam Lee samlee...@yahoo.com:> > Good to know. Will I be missing out on lots of GNU Smalltalk's ecosystem> and features if I do not use Emacs? I know how to use Emacs but it is> not something I prefer.> > IMO, dependence on GNU Emacs is bad for the language because of high> barrier to entry for beginners (they need to learn the language +> implementation + Emacs).> >> Other Smalltalk implementations can be complementary.>> >> I think that GNU smalltalk is rather for more command-line oriented>> (and GNU emacs) style of software development.> > Yes, I noticed the command line focus of GNU Smalltalk. That's why I> found it attractive. However, the lack of continued development is> rather worrying.
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
On 2021-11-13 18:41:23Z, Piotr Klibert wrote: > GST may be slow and buggy and without libraries, but it's also stable GST is not slow, at least not slow in its class, which is bytecode compiled dynamic typed language without a JIT. It is also not particularly buggy in this class. The VM is beautifully written and can be used as a textbook example for how to implement a VM in C. Derek
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, at 10:50, Sam Lee wrote: > Good to know. Will I be missing out on lots of GNU Smalltalk's ecosystem > and features if I do not use Emacs? I know how to use Emacs but it is > not something I prefer. > > IMO, dependence on GNU Emacs is bad for the language because of high > barrier to entry for beginners (they need to learn the language + > implementation + Emacs). No, not at all, any editor you're comfortable with will do. Emacs has just one advantage over everything else, and that's the fact that the syntax highlighting for GST for Emacs is included in the repo. The syntax is minimal and rather regular, so it should be very easy to add support for it to your editor if it lacks it. The Emacs mode also provides the so-called "inferior shell mode", which means you can open the REPL in a separate tab and send selected code to it without having to copy That's it. I think you can get pretty much the same by simply filingIn the whole file from the REPL when you need to reload (this gets a bit more involved when you work with namespaces). I use Emacs, but I haven't ever felt the need to even check if `gst-mode.el` works at all... > Yes, I noticed the command line focus of GNU Smalltalk. That's why I > found it attractive. However, the lack of continued development is > rather worrying. I think there's some life in GST still... Its code is not bad, and the VM implementation is not very ancient. I think it wouldn't be bad to give it a try before going for another implementation (I would suggest looking at st/x next if gst doesn't work for you: https://swing.fit.cvut.cz/projects/stx-jv) What do you want to build? Why choose Smalltalk specifically, and why do you prefer (if I read your words correctly) a command-line-based approach over the GUI-based browsers? I think if we knew the answers to these, we could give you more precise advice :) -- Best regards, Piotr Klibert
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021, at 08:26, Sam Lee wrote: > Is GNU Smalltalk abandoned? Not exactly. There are a few maintainers around, so they will probably accept patches. But nothing new happened in the last few years, as you say. > The most recent release was from 2013 (version 3.2.5) [2]. I think the git repo version is more up to date, with the last commit in 2018 IIRC. > VisualGST, the GNU Smalltalk browser no longer compiles on current systems. I was able to compile it on Fedora (28 - 33). I also found a few bugs in VGST, I posted one patch here IIRC, but, in general, I can testify that it still works. I don't remember at the moment what I did exactly to make it compile and work though, I'll need to check. > Is GNU Smalltalk dead? Should I move to other Smalltalk implementations? The problem is - there are no other Smalltalk implementations with strong command-line support and a "bring your own editor" philosophy. I checked out all implementations I could find this spring, and only Smalltalk/X seemed to have good command-line/console support, but that one IIRC works by compiling to native code via compilation to C++, which makes it a much more complex beast than GST. All the other implementations either derive from Squeak (and shove the various kinds of graphical browsers right in front of you whether you want it or not), cost a lot (with the open-source version crippled, without support for SSL), don't work on Linux, don't have any support for working without a GUI, or are too complex to the point I don't feel comfortable using them without a lot of studying before. GST may be slow and buggy and without libraries, but it's also stable (the other side of the "no development" coin), small, simple, and has one thing I really appreciate: the STInST, ie. the Smalltalk parser implemented in Smalltalk, that you can extend and modify as you need. Being command-line focused turned out to not be a big deal: the default REPL implementation uses readline and it blocks at the C level (Coroutines don't run then). So I had to write a little socket server and connect to it via rlwrapped telnet - works quite well in reality. Anyway, back to VisualGST and why I'm writing this - I managed to make it work, but my project was going to be mostly CLI-based anyway, so I didn't want to rely on it. Instead, I implemented some of the browser functionality as a bunch of helpers you can use in the REPL, including searching for message sends, implementors, methods, classes, namespaces, and so on. I was forced to stop working on it at some point, so it's far from complete, but it proved quite usable when I was exploring STInST. It's not the full replacement for the GUI browser, because you need to set up a separate editor, but once you do, you can open and edit a method definition and have it automatically reloaded. The code is on GH if you want to take a look (with some screenshots, too!): https://github.com/piotrklibert/stshell I think the next thing I'll be touching once I can get back to the project will be the console debugger. For debugging, I still resorted to the GUI one, because the implementation for the console is incredibly buggy and limited in comparison. I'd like to make both support the same functionalities, and preferably be on par with Smalltalk/X console debugger, which is really good. Anyway, to finally answer your main question: GST *is dying slowly* of old age and bit rot, but *it's still alive* for now, and there are a handful of people who work on its life support. Unless we get a "killer app" in the next few years, I think we can say goodbye to GST, sadly. -- Best regards, Piotr Klibert
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
On 2021-11-13 09:38 +0100, s...@pandora.be wrote: > VisualGST still compiles for me on Solaris 11.4 by the way. I see. I am using Debian and Ubuntu. VisualGST has not worked on Debian and Ubuntu in nearly a decade: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnu-smalltalk/+bug/995016 > I think the original approach of GNU Smalltalk was rather to use GNU > emacs as its code browser. Good to know. Will I be missing out on lots of GNU Smalltalk's ecosystem and features if I do not use Emacs? I know how to use Emacs but it is not something I prefer. IMO, dependence on GNU Emacs is bad for the language because of high barrier to entry for beginners (they need to learn the language + implementation + Emacs). > Other Smalltalk implementations can be complementary. > > I think that GNU smalltalk is rather for more command-line oriented > (and GNU emacs) style of software development. Yes, I noticed the command line focus of GNU Smalltalk. That's why I found it attractive. However, the lack of continued development is rather worrying.
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
There is no problem to create files with "vi" or "pico" and use them with "GNU smalltalk", there is something more subtle like overall product philosophy or 'personal touch', that is harder to get the same when the original author certainly preferred GNU emacs (I think). Regards, David Stes - Op 13 nov 2021 om 10:50 schreef Sam Lee samlee...@yahoo.com: > > Good to know. Will I be missing out on lots of GNU Smalltalk's ecosystem > and features if I do not use Emacs? I know how to use Emacs but it is > not something I prefer. > > IMO, dependence on GNU Emacs is bad for the language because of high > barrier to entry for beginners (they need to learn the language + > implementation + Emacs). > >> Other Smalltalk implementations can be complementary. >> >> I think that GNU smalltalk is rather for more command-line oriented >> (and GNU emacs) style of software development. > > Yes, I noticed the command line focus of GNU Smalltalk. That's why I > found it attractive. However, the lack of continued development is > rather worrying.
Re: Is GNU Smalltalk dead?
VisualGST still compiles for me on Solaris 11.4 by the way. Personally I don't use VisualGST and I think the original approach of GNU Smalltalk was rather to use GNU emacs as its code browser. Other Smalltalk implementations can be complementary. I think that GNU smalltalk is rather for more command-line oriented (and GNU emacs) style of software development. Regards, David Stes - Op 13 nov 2021 om 8:26 schreef Sam Lee samlee...@yahoo.com: > Is GNU Smalltalk abandoned? I notice that there has been no development > in the last few years [1]. The most recent release was from 2013 > (version 3.2.5) [2]. VisualGST, the GNU Smalltalk browser no longer > compiles on current systems. > > Is GNU Smalltalk dead? Should I move to other Smalltalk implementations? > > [1]: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/smalltalk.git > [2]: https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/smalltalk/
