Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
In every technical publication, and on this site too, people are always comparing OO languages to Smalltalk. My experience is in Java: is Smalltalk so important that I should study it?
Smalltalk was one of the earliest object-oriented (OO) languages (with others like Simula and Eiffel) and can be said to be extremely "pure" in an OO sense:
ints, booleans etc)for, while, if etc). Sounds impossible but it s true!It also pioneered some other, now common, stuff:
And there are other things connected with Smalltalk which didn t really make it into the mainstream:
And it s fair to say that the Java collections API and the apache-commons collections API are heavily influenced by Smalltalk.
I wouldn t say that you should learn Smalltalk per se, but a familiarity with the fundamentals of these features (now present in many other languages) is surely advantageous to you.
Note that there are currently only 123 questions on here about the language, which was originally intended as an educational language (i.e. aimed at children) by its creator, Alan Kay. It is not particularly heavily used anymore. That s not to say it isn t used. JPMorgan, for example, has a large exotic derivatives risk-management system written in it.
Smalltalk has many brilliant innovations - things we re all taking for granted today, including:
The single most important reason to learn Smalltalk today is that extreme programming and scrum both got invented in the Smalltalk community... and the highly interactive style of programming you experience in Smalltalk is simpler, more powerful and direct than anything you can do with Java or C# or Ruby... and you can t really understand how well agile methods can work until you ve tried to do extreme programming in Smalltalk. Few other languages (no mainstream ones anyway) have a comparable feature set.
... to really understand what TDD can be you need to use SUnit. JUnit just shows you where your tests failed. SUnit actually allows you click into the debugger at the point where the test failed and see the actual objects and how they re connected so you can see, live in the debugger how the code failed and fix it right there.
Yes, Smalltalk is so important you should study it. Why? You can understand object-oriented programming in pure, simple form. What people forget is that the Smalltalk-80 "Blue Book" has only about 90 pages devoted to the language—the language is just that simple. The other 300 pages talk about the predefined class hierarchy, which is a masterpiece of design for a class-based, object-oriented language that uses single inheritance. You will get a much deeper understanding of objects (e.g., classes are objects, and they have metaclasses, and so on off to infinity... except the knot is carefully tied to keep the system finite) than you would ever get from studying a hybrid language like Java or C++. Smalltalk matters not just because of its history but because of its simplicity:
Simple enough so you can understand the entire language and the libraries
Shows one idea (objects are all you need) pushed to its logical extreme
Everybody has something to learn from Smalltalk!
Smalltalk is one of the first two original OOP languages, the other being Simula-67. Consequently, there are two large families - the statically typed model centered around method invocation, pioneered by Simula (C++, Java, C# all belong here), and the dynamically typed model centered around message passing, pioneered by Smalltalk (Python, Ruby belong here).
Today, Smalltalk isn t particularly important on its own - there are some people still using it to write stuff, but it s definitely not mainstream. Learning it will give you some insight in how and why OOP evolved, however.
I spent about 5 minutes in a presentation at a conference last month on Smalltalk s history and influence. See Image-based development with Smalltalk. One of the more foreign concepts to today s programmers is the "image-based" development. There are some good analogies, including a DBMS and a spreadsheet.
Yes. Download the seaside one-click image, start using it with the tutorial from James Foster and you will learn at least:
I agree with the others. I m not sure if it s important per se, but it is COOL (imho).
I love that there are no loops or conditionals in the language. If-then-else is a message sent to a boolean object. Objects of type True do one thing, objects of type False do another. (Yes, True and False are subtypes of Boolean, with a single value each, true and false respectively).
It starts out being kind of counter-intuitive, but it does give you a very interesting, and deep, view of how OO programming should work...
Not only was it one of the first, Smalltalk remains to this day a paragon of OO language design. The more popular languages that came later — C++, Java, even Objective-C — all have more primitive object-orientation and are more restrictive than good old Smalltalk. Smalltalk had pervasive first-class objects, great support for runtime introspection, very natural use of duck typing and closures that worked better than I ve seen in any non-functional language. I mean, we re talking about a language that had no native control structures (if, while, etc.) but was able to create them out of its object system in a way that worked seamlessly. How cool is that?
I wouldn t recommend Smalltalk for any intensive desktop app development these days (there just isn t a viable implementation IMO), but if you want to see how OO was meant to be and maybe pick up some ideas you can use in your apps, Smalltalk is a great place to look.
If you only know one object-oriented language you should consider learning a second and a third and a fourth in order to gain a broader perspective on programming with objects. Learning Smalltalk will stretch your brain because a lot of the familiar concepts we re used to in other languages (e.g. if-then-else, for(;;), while(), etc) are not there in Smalltalk. There are equivalents, obviously, but Smalltalk does things differently, and learning about different ways to do things is always a good idea.
Good luck.
I ve just started to revive my interest in Smalltalk, and in my opinion, there are a few compelling things that are special about Smalltalk:
None of these make it especially useful for people who are not in the software development business. My first exposure to it was when I saw a user interface for an embedded device prototyped on a PC using Smalltalk. This allowed the user interface to be modified and tested very quickly, and when completed, provided the embedded developers an "executable specification" that was far more precise than any document. I m surprised I haven t seen this technique used far more often than I ve observed in my travels during the last 20 years.
Using Smalltalk as a prototyping tool is where my interest lies: I think that given a new problem, different approaches to solving it can be tried and validated very quickly and easily in a Smalltalk environment, and once the desired solution is found it should be relatively mechanical to convert it to Java/C++/C# etc. etc. In fact, for repetitive sorts of things, it might well be possible to use Smalltalk to generate code for parts of the solution in some other target language.
The other thing about SmallTalk is that its alumni include Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham. Their work with SmallTalk spawned automated xUnit testing, software design patterns, CRC Cards and other practices which ed into XP/Agile, etc. So it could be argued that SmallTalk has been a major contributor to the modern programming landscape.
Just two comments:
Smalltalk is not object "oriented", is real objects, only objects and messages in the environment.
Smalltalk is not a language, is an environment that has a language (of the same name), but most of the "magic" here is thanks to the environment (the image).
In C#, I know that I can overload the constructor for a class by specifying it in the body of the class: public class MyClass() { public MyClass(String s) { ... } } This overrides the default ...
I m new to C++ and am wondering how much time I should invest in learning how to implement template classes. Are they widely used in industry, or is this something I should move through quickly?
While designing ORM, what is the best approach to represent the relationship, performance-wise? I mean, out of the following two, which approach is best considering performance? class Employee { ...
I am in the middle of solving a problem where I think it s best suited for a decorator and a state pattern. The high level setting is something like a sandwich maker and dispenser, where I have a set ...
Is there a standardized way to store classes in JSON, and then converting them back into classes again from a string? For example, I might have an array of objects of type Questions. I d like to ...
I m a little confused about what is going on in Perl constructors. I found these two examples perldoc perlbot. package Foo; #In Perl, the constructor is just a subroutine called new. sub new { #I ...
I was wondering what is the best practice re. passing (another class) amongst two instances of the same class (lets call this Primary ). So, essentially in the constructor for the first, i can ...
A Google search yields a number of results - but which ones are the best? The Perl site appears to contain two - perlboot and perltoot. I m reading these now, but what else is out there? Note: I ve ...