Thank you , Andrew, for that back-story! I really liked OS/2 and was extremely reluctant to give it up; it had a really good design.
On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Glynn <aglyn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your history is accurate, but there’s a few things I’d like to add, due > to having been employed by IBM at exactly that period working specifically > on VisualAge, not only for Smalltalk, but for Java, C++ and Cobol as well. > (my NDA’s finally having expired also helps 😉). It’s not a correction > or contradiction, but a complement to your description, providing a > relevant but different perspective. > > > > IBM *did* tell some of their customers to move to Java, but that was > partly based on the existence of VisualAge for Java, which in some ways > went beyond VA Smalltalk, in others not as far, but did make migration to > Java easier, and in some cases possible at all. Its replacement, Eclipse, > simply doesn’t. And it could do so, because as with all VisualAge > products, it was written in Smalltalk. One of the things that annoys me > about the whole thing the most is that the biggest complaint, which was a > partial but significant reason it wasn’t more popular, was from developers > who ‘couldn’t see their files’, i.e. couldn’t edit them in vi(le) and build > on the command line. I heard that complaint on a project using both the > Java and C++ versions so many times I finally responded “nobody gives a > shit about your f*cking files”, in the middle of the office at Pratt & > Whitney Aerospace, lol. > > > > Since VA for Java (and VA C++) are now abandonware, it’s an example of > what I meant by owning a market, failing to promote it, and thereby > destroying it, and also the reason I referred to IBM specifically as being > ‘very good at it' > > > > I was involved in writing a major application in both Java and C++ using > CORBA in 2000-2002, and on that we also used both VA C++ and VA Java. > Otherwise, quite honestly, we may not have finished it despite having some > brilliant people on the team, since doing CORBA manually, especially with > object trees that use C++ multiple inheritance, can be near impossible to > get working reliably. > > > > Unfortunately, due to being abandoned, the core of the app is no longer > even buildable with current tools. If you look at the binary jars in the > latest release (2016) the dates on them are still mid-2002. The most > surprising thing to me is that they still run at all, particularly with > Java 8 on current platforms (mainly Solaris 11 and Windows 10), considering > they were written and built on Java 1.3.1, and although they targeted > Windows and Solaris/AIX, were in fact written on OS/2 v. 4, because Solaris > didn’t run at the time on any laptop, and Windows 2000 *loaded* on a high > spec laptop for the time but couldn’t really be judged to be *running*, > i.e. it loaded and proceeded to thrash to the degree that nothing further > got accomplished. > > > > VA Smalltalk as it’s publicly available (at the not insignificant cost of > ~$8500+ per license), is written on a base IBM Smalltalk that’s ~26 years > old. Instantiations has improved some things, but the core is vastly out > of date. Meanwhile, IBM themselves have a fully current version (the last > version I saw, when visiting a former colleague at the lab, was released > early last year, but is only available internally. This wasn’t one of the > four I referred to in my other post, but nearly qualifies as ‘publicly > unavailable’, since the available version is not nearly the same. > > > > VA is also very out of date in comparison with VW, Pharo, F-Script and > Squeak, not only in comparison with the internal version. In particular > the UI doesn’t fully incorporate the improvements made (largely via the > Announcer) in Morphic and the other current Smalltalk GUI’s. Like Swing > and SWT, part of those improvements are there, but that in many ways only > makes things worse. That WindowBuilder (available free for Java in > Eclipse, but not for free in VA Smalltalk) is in fact a simple port of the > original Smalltalk version is demonstration enough that the UI is not > significantly different than the UI in Eclipse itself, or in Swing, since > Swing is also supported by WindowBuilder. > > > > As an example of the remaining problems, I recently reverse engineered a > complex legacy database via the Eclipse Dali JPA tools in order to make it > available to BIRT / Talend for reporting. On an i7 with the DB on an SSD, > it took over 950 CPU hours to complete. As of today, it has been in > process of exiting for another 140 CPU hours, trying to catch up with the > events triggered by Dali. > > > > Perhaps that helps understand why I’m not thrilled with even some of the > better libraries in many other environments. > > > > Outside Smalltalk and languages with IDE’s written in it. OS/2 is a > great example of owning a market, then destroying it by not promoting it. > OS/2 never owned the mainstream market of course, but what it did largely > own was the smaller but sometimes crucial market for PC based systems that > could run complex software reliably. Despite having ‘killed’ OS/2 13 years > ago, version 5.0 came out in June, released by a “company” of former IBM > people financed by IBM, whose company name means “new box”. > > > > The reason IBM can’t completely kill it is that companies who can’t move > software off it, because every attempt to do so (to either Windows Server > or different forms of *nix) has failed, in some cases over a dozen times, > include such small entities as Boeing, MIT, NASA, the US government, > including all four branches of the military, all of the world’s airlines, > GE, Rolls Royce, Pratt & Whitney, GM, Siemens, AT&T, and Citibank, just to > name a few I know of (and none are exactly publicizing the fact). Despite > the existence, today, of both Linux and Solaris on x86, and the > improvements between Windows NT in the 1990’s and Windows Server today, > institutions with fairly capable developers, such as MIT and Bell Labs, > just to name two, can’t port software they simultaneously can’t be without, > to any of those platforms. There *is* a specific technology in OS/2 not > available elsewhere that is the main culprit, the Distributed System Object > Model. Somewhat ironically though, one of the main uses of SOM/DSOM is to > provide the type of live object manipulation and debugging to the core > environment (and in a distributed manner) common in dialects of Smalltalk > but virtually unknown otherwise. > > > > The person I learned Java RMI, JINI and J2EE architecture from was, by > happenstance, the same person who architected OS/2. A somewhat humorous > story is that IBM dropped out of a project begun with Sun in the late > 1990’s to write a pure JavaOS. IBM’s reason for dropping out was > embarrassment at the fact that pure Java apps ran faster on OS/2 than on > the pure JavaOS. Sun couldn’t at the time afford to complete it on their > own so it disappeared, as unreleased products do, without even the marginal > trace of existing on abandonware sites. That person was also, > unsurprisingly, one of the key developers of IBM Smalltalk. > > > > I’m not claiming that IBM or anyone else does such things in a completely > aware way. Rather, the fact that efficient environments are difficult to > build without significant time and resources (both are necessary because no > matter how many resources are available, rushing the development will > result in mistakes that have to be fixed later, giving the environment an > unstable base to build on), combined with the advantage industry > inefficiencies provide to the companies *with* those resources, makes the > situation relatively easy to reinforce *without *really needing to admit > what you’re doing, particularly to yourself. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for > Windows 10 > > > > *From: *jtuc...@objektfabrik.de > *Sent: *Monday, October 23, 2017 3:32 AM > *To: *Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> > *Subject: *Re: [Pharo-users] perspective request for those earning a > living fromSmalltalk > > > > Petr, > > > > I've been working as a Consultant for many big corporations (mainly in > > VA Smalltalk) since 1996. The situation you describe is very well known > > to me. But in my opinion there is no technical reason for this. It's a > > managerial problem. Ever since IBM went out to their customers and told > > them to move to Java for the better ini the mid-90ies, managers wanted > > the Smalltalk projects to go away as fast as possible. Nobody asked why > > IBM was still happily using VisualAge Smalltalk internally at that time > > frame.... > > > > So the Smalltalk projects were declared legacy by Management. > > Replacement projects were started with big efforts and optimism. Some > > went well, some somewhat came to fly in a bit more than double the time > > and much more times the costthan planned, some failed miserably. One > > thing was in common to the replacement projects all over the place: they > > took much longer, turned out to be much mor complicated and took a lot > > more manpower than anybody had ever imagined. > > > > So two important things happened: > > > > 1) People were told the old Smalltalk stuff would be gone soon, so if > > you wanted to be a valued and appreciated staff member, you better stay > > away from these projects > > 2) The people who knew the business and technical side of the existing > > projects were moved to the new projects. Some liked it (because of 1) > > some were frustrated (because they knew / feared the new project was > > going to be a death march) > > > > > > Over the first 2 years or so, nobody realized how bad the situation > > really was. It was easy to postpone user requirements to the new > > project, accumulate more and more manpower in the new project and still > > keep up green flags everywhere. > > > > ...until yellow was the new green and users/stakeholders wanted the new > > features NOW - and not one day when the replacement project would become > > real. > > > > So the remaining manpower in the old project (not the ones with lots of > > experience and knowledge) had to extend the old system, integrate it > > with the new system (thereby implementing all the stuff that IBM once > > told their management would never be possible in Smalltalk) and keep it > > up and ranning year after year. Nobody ever said Thank You or would > > appreciate the work they did. Because that was old stuff anyways and was > > already irrelevant. > > > > > > Some of these old systems still exist today, serving users every single > > day, while some of the new systems never appeared. No manpower was ever > > added to these projects, and never would anybody ever say: okay, guys, > > you won. They still work on legacy code and try to do their best to > > fulfill user requirements. While on other projects that never see the > > light of day, people get appreciation, are allowed to work with new > > technologies and do cool stuff. Nobody ever asked the Smalltalkers > > whether they could do that as well, because "if you want to do web, you > > need to do Java". IBM said so, you know (and many other consultants as > > well). > > > > So this is why new people try to stay away from these old projects. This > > is why the remaining staff is frustrated and this is why nobody allows > > them to do the cool things that Smalltalk can do as well as the others. > > They are just required to fix bugs, add new features in the old GUIs and > > else keep silent. Some of them were trying to fight this and tried to > > prove Smalltalk's strengths, but back then nobody would listen. One day > > they gave up. > > > > > > Management still frustrates people every. single. day. > > > > > > Just my opinion > > > > > > Joachim > > > > > > > > > > Am 22.10.17 um 18:56 schrieb Petr Fischer: > > > Here. (But from one point of view, it's a litte misery, 10-20 year old > code sometimes, a mess, old VAST, absolutely no interest from young > colleagues with no experience to willingly learn something about Smalltalk > etc etc.). > > > > > > If I bring up enough arguments, we will use Gemstone+Pharo tools in the > future, which is a dream for me... but, we will see... > > > > > > pf > > > > > >> At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15523807 > > >> the question is asked... "Does anyone on here program in Smalltalk > > >> professionally? Not to get off topic, but I'm curious and would like to > > >> know how it stacks up compared to what they did previously? " > > >> > > >> If you've earning a living from programming Smalltalk, please drop a > > >> comment there. > > >> > > >> cheers -ben > > > > > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuc...@objektfabrik.de > > Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de > > D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com > > Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1 > > > > > > >
