Smalltalk is not a perfect language. What are its shortcomings?

Smaller than it would be if it were written in Smalltalk instead of C. (I'm kidding, I like Smalltalk, but the comparison to an OS doesn't do much when we're discussing the size of very small bits of code).

Re: Smalltalk is not a perfect language. What are its shortcomings?

#6

Post by jecel » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

claudiawerner wrote: post #5

scroot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How big is your operating system?

Smaller than it would be if it were written in Smalltalk instead of C. (I'm kidding, I like Smalltalk, but the comparison to an OS doesn't do much when we're discussing the size of very small bits of code).

Actually, having written operating systems in C, Objective-C and Smalltalk I can say that unless we are talking about something MS-DOS like in simplicity then the Smalltalk OS will be much smaller than the C one.

The unstripped binary for the Little Smalltalk 3 virtual machine is 55,229 bytes on my Linux computer and the systemImage file, at 102,100 bytes, includes mostly things that would not be needed for a "hello world" program.

Re: Smalltalk is not a perfect language. What are its shortcomings?

#7

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 9:53 PM UTC

> First, Smalltalk is dynamically typed. People who believe static typing is a better way to code will view this as a shortcoming. I don’t.

"People might raise problem X, but nah" isn't an overly convincing way to argue for dynamic typing.

Re: Smalltalk is not a perfect language. What are its shortcomings?

#8

Post by EdwardDiego » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

igouy wrote: post #4

BubRoss wrote: post #2

Hello world being 50MB might be one.

What is 50MB supposed to be the size-of ? What is the JVM equivalent ?

Let's say that the size we're measuring is the distributable unit. I give you this, and assuming you've got common dependencies, you can run it without building or compiling.

Re: Smalltalk is not a perfect language. What are its shortcomings?

#9

Post by dingosity » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

I think this is really an article about Squeak, one specific implementation of Smalltalk, along with a few comments about GNU Smalltalk. Smalltalk is, like Lisp, really a collection of implementations sharing particular features.

ParcPlace Smalltalk was different from Digitalk SmallTalk/V was different from IBM Visual Age Smalltalk was different from CinCom Smalltalk was different from Dolphin was different from Squeak was different from GNU Smalltalk.

Re: Smalltalk is not a perfect language. What are its shortcomings?

#10

Post by dingosity » Fri, Nov 01, 2019, 10:08 PM UTC

EdwardDiego wrote: post #7

> First, Smalltalk is dynamically typed. People who believe static typing is a better way to code will view this as a shortcoming. I don’t. "People might raise problem X, but nah" isn't an overly convincing way to argue for dynamic typing.

Most Smalltalks have two types: SmallInteger and Object. And they are very strongly typed.