Smalltalk Squeak 6.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Smalltalk Squeak 6.0

#71

Post by igouy » Fri, Jul 08, 2022, 11:08 PM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #25

floren wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's things like this that always made me look a bit askance at Smalltalk. It feels a little like "Document_Final_FINAL_v3_(2).docx", a little like a dirty old whiteboard where you can still see outlines of notes from last year. Might not be a fair assessment, but as an outsider I've always felt this way about image-based systems.

Deploying an application was always an adventure. You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't.

( cont. from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31999774 )

> … no algorithm that can identify all dead code reliably…

Why were you so concerned with the removal of all dead code?

Compared to "… nobody had the source code…" it seems like a minor issue.

Re: Smalltalk Squeak 6.0

#72

Post by igouy » Sat, Jul 09, 2022, 1:53 AM UTC

Rochus wrote: post #70

igouy wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you don't wish to say what process was used to manage Smalltalk source code on the project you describe as a "nightmare"? Oh well.

Why should I answer your questions when you only question everything I say anyway and do not answer my questions? If you understood why the absence of dead code cannot be detected by testing, and that there is no algorithm that can identify all dead code reliably and in finite time in a dynamic language like Smalltalk, your questions and implications would become pointless, since you then would understand why you nev…

( cont. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32028998 )

Re: Smalltalk Squeak 6.0

#73

Post by igouy » Sat, Jul 09, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

igouy wrote: post #71

Rochus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deploying an application was always an adventure. You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't.

( cont. from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31999774 ) > … no algorithm that can identify all dead code reliably… Why were you so concerned with the removal of all dead code? Compared to "… nobody had the source code…" it seems like a minor issue.

( cont. )

imo the more usual concern would be mistakenly removing code that was not dead.

Without a design document, we might think there would be no senders of #factorial without understanding that the intention was to invoke that method on the command line.

For example,

    $ cat fact.st
    Stdio stdout 
        nextPutAll: 100 factorial printString; 
        nextPut: Character lf.!
    SmalltalkImage current snapshot: false andQuit: true!

    $ bin/pharo --headless Pharo10-SNAPSHOT-64bit-502addc.image fact.st
    93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000

So instrumenting methods and logging — https://stackoverflow.com/a/162719