Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pharo 9

pharo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 232 posts

Re: Pharo 9

#221

Post by igouy »

Qem wrote: post #196
igouy wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pharo 5 in 2017 Seems to be tagged 2020 — 5.0-202002121043 Wed Feb 12 11:06:45 UTC 2020 gcc 5.4.0 [Production Spur 64-bit VM] The pharo.version file contains — 80

I'm sorry. You're right. I did a stupid mistake by confounding the vm version with Pharo version. I can't edit my post anymore, but please, anyone reading this, disregard the "Those benchmarks are quite old, from Pharo 5 in 2017" part.

The Pharo 9.0 vm from —

https://files.pharo.org/get-files/90/pharo64-linux-stable.zi...

— is the same as Pharo 8.0 —

5.0-202002121043 Wed Feb 12 11:06:45 UTC 2020 gcc 5.4.0 [Production Spur 64-bit VM]

Re: Pharo 9

#222

Post by igouy »

asah wrote: post #100
a2800276 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C never really fell out of favor, though. And it's also the only available choice apart from assembler in many circumstances. But trying to revive interest in Ada, D, Sather, Prolog, etc would be a lot more difficult.

Smalltalk never really got substantial adoption...

"Ubiquitous Applications: Embedded Systems to Mainframe" (pdf)

https://www.davethomas.net/papers/ubiquitous1995.pdf

Re: Pharo 9

#223

Post by linguae »

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #219
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 1980 to the late 80s or so people were struggling just to get Smalltalk to perform at reasonable speeds on microcomputer class hardware, so saying 1980 isn't really fair. And most of the research that went into getting Smalltalk (and Self) to perform well on those platforms was then used to get Java to perform. In actuality, Smalltalk gave Java a headstart. That said, Smalltalk just doesn't in general "play well…

>people were struggling just to get Smalltalk to perform at reasonable speeds on microcomputer class hardware I've heard this before, but it confuses me as apparently the majority of the systems at Xerox Parc (Window manager, word processor, etc. ) were written in Smalltalk. So how could these sophisticated GUI apps perform there but not on other platforms, was the hardware really so different?

The simple answer to this question is that not all software at Xerox PARC was written in Smalltalk. In fact, Smalltalk was just one out of a few different languages and programming environments that Xerox PARC used. For example, the Bravo word processor was written in BCPL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_(software)). Mesa was also developed at Xerox PARC and was commonly used as an implementation language. Interlisp was also largely developed at Xerox PARC.

Re: Pharo 9

#224

Post by xfer »

anthk wrote: post #220
xfer wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UNIX is not a thing anymore, nobody writes UNIX code. People use various compatibility layer or straight up use kernel abis. And they are all improving over time. So no they are not all stuck in 80s. Even linux kernel devs are willing to add rust code in the mix. > Windows, where the focus is C++ and .NET, Microsoft is huge organization they have multiple focuses. You seem to be mixing the kernel/userland layer and m…

>UNIX is not a thing anymore, nobody writes UNIX code Please, get out of the GNU cult and check out what BSD's are doing in C.

BSDs are not just sticking to what UNIX was(let's say v7?). They are also doing their own thing.

Re: Pharo 9

#225

Post by rendall »

pjmlp wrote: post #207
rendall wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...if one would actually bother to read OO CS literature It's true. I haven't read much OO CS literature AFAIK. Do you have a some recommendations?

"Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming" https://www.amazon.com/Component-Software-Object-Oriented-Pr... The first edition uses Component Pascal instead, https://www.amazon.com/Component-Software-Beyond-Object-Orie... Then even if it hasn't taken the world by storm, "Designing Object Oriented C++ Applications Using The Booch Method" https://www.amazon.com/Designing-Object-Oriented-Application... Assum…

Thanks!

Re: Pharo 9

#227

Post by d-mason »

blacklion wrote: post #101

I wonder, how hard is it to bootstrap Pharo on new platform...

Pharo, like its siblings Cuis, Squeak, and NewSpeak runs on a VM called Open Smalltalk. It is written in a stylized version of Smalltalk so can be debugged with the tandard Smalltalk tools (i.e. you can have the modified VM you're working on load and run an image - but your VM is running in a debugger!)

Then when you're happy with your revised VM, you can spit out portable C code, compile it, and BAM you've got a production VM! Most plug-ins and primitives are also written in the Smalltalk subset (called SLANG), so they will likely be similarly portable.

There is also an FFI for interfacing beyond the standard model.

Re: Pharo 9

#228

Post by Zuider »

thinker5555 wrote: post #44
regularfry wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(incidentally: it's "free rein" as in horses, not "free reign" as in monarchs)

Not a lesson I was expecting to learn today, but here we are. I always thought it was the "reign" version because monarchs can "reign freely".

Giving 'free rein' comes from the pragmatic practice of allowing a horse to chose the best path over difficult terrain on the grounds that the animal would know better than the rider.

Re: Pharo 9

#229

Post by Zuider »

rjsw wrote: post #99
regularfry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the more usual wording is " given a free rein", which makes it a little clearer. A monarch isn't given their reign, it's theirs by right (well, with a bit of hand-waving. Or possibly sword-waving, but not since Henry VII).

The last English king to try to reign with no constraints was Charles I, it didn't end well for him.

James II entertained the same delusions as Charles of being absolute monarch. He had a kinder fate, being carefully allowed to escape twice on his journey to France.

Re: Pharo 9

#230

Post by [deleted] »

bigbizisverywyz wrote: post #219
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 1980 to the late 80s or so people were struggling just to get Smalltalk to perform at reasonable speeds on microcomputer class hardware, so saying 1980 isn't really fair. And most of the research that went into getting Smalltalk (and Self) to perform well on those platforms was then used to get Java to perform. In actuality, Smalltalk gave Java a headstart. That said, Smalltalk just doesn't in general "play well…

>people were struggling just to get Smalltalk to perform at reasonable speeds on microcomputer class hardware I've heard this before, but it confuses me as apparently the majority of the systems at Xerox Parc (Window manager, word processor, etc. ) were written in Smalltalk. So how could these sophisticated GUI apps perform there but not on other platforms, was the hardware really so different?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN