On Oct 1, 6:33 pm, mkpapp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. I would not posit that Smalltalk "didn't take off" or in anyway > "failed."
I think the intent of those participating in this discussion is that Smalltalk, as compared to java, and especially as compared to the great amounts of hype posited by smalltalk fans, has -utterly failed-. Sure, there are programming languages out there that have failed a lot more, but now we're just getting mired in the details. There are no desktop smalltalk-based apps. There are virtually no smalltalk-based webapps. The fact that it has been stated as a cult favourite and an influence by many language designers and influencers only highlights how badly it has failed from the point of view of your run of the mill programming language consumer. The legacy of smalltalk was a success, perhaps. The actual language? It's nowhere. > 3. ST was originally (nearly) inseparable from its IDE (and thanks for > introducing the IDE approach to development). This made deployment > difficult. Which was pretty stupid considering that in those days, the only place an app was going to go, was deployment. NOW, in the webserver-rich 21st century, that is a perfectly workable arrangement, but back then, idiologically a dumb move. I get a serious feeling of LISP deja vu here: Our language is great, -GREAT-, bloody BRILLIANT! Every language nut out there agrees with us. The only possible explanation for the worlds continued ignorance is either a great big conspiracy by Microsoft or some other faceless 'Them', or because the world is fundamentally made up of idiots. The endless stream of fresh lisp users, in the mean time, get insulted routinely, and complaints that lisp severely lacks the 'batteries included' principle get waved away or apologized; not fixed. Smalltalk, at least back then, didn't have their eyes on the ball either. No one watching out for the final product. Back then, no serious deployment option meant it wasn't a programming language that mere mortals could even start with. A language afficionado is not usually interested in the same stuff as a mere simpleton programmer. They can appreciate a language's quirks and interesting features for its own sake. Everyone else looks at the language, notices they can't actually make any serious software other than command line toy projects, and bounce. > little to no traction in among corporate ISV's due to the "everyone > uses C | C++" mentality (now replaced with "everyone uses C | C++ | > Java"). Oh, absolutely. the blame is certainly not just with the smalltalk crowd. However, don't underestimate the draw of the host language factor. C for Unix, and C++ for Windows, were by definition the places where you could do -everything-. All other languages were built on top of it and could only do less. Smalltalk did not have a workable webserver system until 2002, as far as I can remember (seaside's original launch). So why use smalltalk? You couldn't -do- anything with it. 2002 is kinda late to join the game. Then again, rails took off like a rocket and there really isn't a good reason why seaside didn't get the same treatment. Seaside was earlier, too; Rails got its first world intro in 2004. > > 4. It only takes a small amount of Googling to see that ST has a > large, vibrant, and active user community. So does Lisp. Lisp is still just as 'dead', in the sense its being used in this discussion, as smalltalk. People who want to learn another language now, invariably go for Ruby, Python, Javascript, or Scala. A few pioneers might have a look at Haskell for novelty value, or ObjectiveC for the iPhone. The silver thread? You can DO THINGS with those languages. Ruby and Python have excellent web frameworks and are quite useful for quick scripting tasks. Scala has a great web framework. Javascript is useful for writing rich AJAXy things (even with GWT available, which is a great tool, but a leaky abstraction). ObjC is the host language for OS X and the iPhone. Smalltalk also allows you to do something: Write webapps; seaside is nice. I'm confused as to why smalltalk doesn't have even remotely the userbase of Python or Ruby. Still, until 2002, Smalltalk had nothing useful to offer. > 6. Lastly, I have this theory: Every 10 or so years another > programming language comes out of the starting block and gains > mainstream traction - at the same time a number of equally qualified > (or better) languages come along that fall by the wayside. History certainly backs you up on this one. I have no definite proof but it certainly seems like it. Perhaps you need to have some momentum just as a certain new paradigm becomes important which the current slew of popular languages really doesn't handle well, -or-, could, but no one is stepping up to the plate. It's happend; perl was open source and crazy popular and yet Larry Wall effectively let it die chasing unicorns (a.k.a. perl6). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
