RubyMotion pros and cons

Re:RubyMotion pros and cons by chc on Friday May 04, 2012 @02:13PM (#3929602)

Oh, Smalltalk is more different than that. Most Smalltalk applications are deeply integrated with their development environment, so that for example you can't store your code in files and easily connect them with bits of code in another language, and you can't statically compile your programs. Essentially, your programs would have to become image-based, which is a much bigger hurdle than just another language.

I'd guess "the image thing" is probably the reason Smalltalk hasn't taken off more than it has.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:RubyMotion pros and cons by stcredzero on Friday May 04, 2012 @04:46PM (#3930288)

> Most Smalltalk applications are deeply integrated with their development environment

I used to work for a vendor, and I've written a significant fraction of such an environment.

> so that for example you can't store your code in files and easily connect them with bits of code in another language

Which is why I know this to be patently false. You can actually add compiler objects and have select methods written in SQL or whatever language you like.

> Essentially, your programs would have to become image-based

Again, patently false for the REPL use case. Also there are a number of declarative Smalltalks already, which don't need to be started from an image file. Also, Smalltalk MT used to compile down to a DLL indistinguishable from any C++ DLL.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:RubyMotion pros and cons by chc on Friday May 04, 2012 @05:08PM (#3930372)

Ah, this is a little bit embarrassing. I had somehow read your comment as meaning that somebody should make something like RubyMotion but with Smalltalk, with the REPL being a neat incentive. Rereading, I see that was totally in my head. Sorry. No idea what I was thinking, but it's too late to delete it now. I suppose my brain just saw "Smalltalk" and "iOS" in the same sentence and got worked up.

But incidentally, do you happen to know offhand of any resources about adding new compilers like you were talking about? That sounds pretty neat. I unfortunately missed the golden age of Smalltalk, so most of what I know comes from playing around with Squeak and GNU Smalltalk and reading about older implementations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:RubyMotion pros and cons by stcredzero on Friday May 04, 2012 @05:21PM (#3930408)

But incidentally, do you happen to know offhand of any resources about adding new compilers like you were talking about? That sounds pretty neat.

The examples for the T-Gen compiler compiler in VisualWorks Smalltalk talked a little about this, and had a toy SQL example. IIRC, there was a <pragma: > you could put in a method to use your own Compiler object. Also, Smalltalk/X actually let you implement methods in C right in the Smalltalk class browser.

Unfortunately, a lot of documentation and other info are lost in the mists of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]