Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I've been wanting to get into a pure-OO language for a while now, but I'm put off by the fact that they all seem to demand an IDE and I can't find any good tutorials that aren't in video format.
I'm happy to use an IDE later, but I don't want to learn the language through one. What I'm looking for is a simple console interpreter or command-line compiler such as gcc, ghc, ghci and the python IDLE (yes, it's an IDE, but it's so minimalist that it may as well just be a commandline interpretter). I find that I learn a language faster, better and more comprehensively when I'm not trying to grapple with an IDE at the same time. So please, don't tell me that squeak is the only way to do it :P
I'm also looking for tutorials that are presented textually rather than visually. Again, I learn faster when I can stare at a page and read someone's sentance over and over tossing and turning it in my mind rather than having to pause a video, take it back 10 seconds, press play, do it again, and again, and again.
I'm interested in various languages with various degrees of OO-purity, and I plan to learn them all at some point. Any of the smalltalk dialects interest me, Self (an extreme prototype-oriented version of smalltalk (Very interesting, the more radical the better imo)), strongtalk, vanilla smalltalk (or some implementation which is as vanilla as you can get).
I'm interested in Eiffel as well, the code snippets I've seen make it seem very elegant and I've read that it actually was very innovative (introduced code-contracts and other such things). However I would give preference to a language from the smalltalk camp over one from the Eiffel side because Eiffel at face value seems to be a hybrid between OO and imperative programming. Similarly I'd rather avoid Scala (Hybrid OO and functional) and other hybrid languages. So no C#, Java, C++, D, python etc etc etc. I'm not dismissing these languages because I believe they are bad, it's just that I'm setting out to learn pure-OO and those languages are hybrid OO: Not really what I'm looking for.
Also, would anyone be able to recommend the official books? For smalltalk there's the "Blue book" AKA "Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation". And for Eiffel there's "Eiffel: The Language". I ask because in my experience you can pick up so much by reading books written by the author of the language (see K&R the C programming language), and by reading books in general.
So yes, my questions: What pure-OO language would be good to start off with? How would I go about learning it without having to use an IDE? And is there an associated book written by the language author(s)?
It is not helpful to learn Smalltalk as just another language. You would be missing the point entirely.
Smalltalk's graphical environment is not just an IDE. The core of the system is simply objects. The interface provides various ways to create objects and interact with them. The language is just a convenient way to create messages to the objects. It is secondary to the objects themselves.
In other OO languages, you write your program, then you run it, which creates objects in memory. Not so in Smalltalk. You create objects in memory (e.g. class objects) and then send messages to e.g. add methods. But a class object is only created once, not every time you "run your program".
There is no such thing as "your program", in fact. There is no "main". It's just a world of objects, some longer-lived, some temporary. In fact, in the system there are objects that were created 30 years ago. Literally. The objects are just frozen to disk as a memory dump (a file which we call "image") and unfrozen later (possibly on a different machine).
That image, the world of objects, is the primary artifact in Smalltalk. There is a sources file, yes, but that's just a database of text snippets to not take up so much RAM. You cannot edit this file by hand (objects in the image use absolute file offsets into the sources file). You cannot re-create the system from the sources file - the system was bootstrapped a long time ago and from then on only modified.
It's true that superficially the Smalltalk GUI looks just like another IDE. No coincidence - Eclipse was originally written by Smalltalkers in Smalltalk. But there is the crucial difference that in regular IDEs you just manipulate text files. A text editor is a valid alternative for that. In Smalltalk, the GUI manipulates objects in memory. A text editor can not do that.
And as for what Smalltalk to use, I would recommend Squeak. Very friendly community, very nice environment, and subscribing to the original Smalltalk vision of creating a great personal computing environment for everyone.
As someone who has went through process of learning Smalltalk (at least to a decent degree), I can say that you are taking harder and riskier path, in a sense that some things may take much longer to clear up, or never actually do.
But, if you insist, you can download GNU Smalltalk, for which no GUI is a norm. It also contains all sources of the system written in Smalltalk in a chunk format and you can open your text editor on them and enjoy while slowly reading through the guts of the system.
You could also startup any other Smalltalk, like Pharo, and just stick with a workspace window - this is your equivalent of command line interpreter.
Pharo also includes ProfStef quick interactive tutorial on Smalltalk, which combines text instructions and evaluating Smalltalk expressions.
As for reading, there is Pharo By Example - free book that you can browse, download or buy hardcopy.
There is also a collection of free books in which I would recommend "Smalltalk-80: The Language and its Implementation" By Adele Goldberg and David Robson, if you are interested in the innards and detail of the language.
Late David N. Smith Smalltalk FAQ is also exelent resource.
So, there you go. And take advice, and give in to the Smalltalk IDE as soon as possible, since it makes understanding of Smalltalk much, much, faster.
Richard Gabriel gave a talk recently about a paradigm shift that occurred in the programming language community in the early 90s. He claims that most experts today are incapable of understanding many of the papers from the 80s. He has evidence to back this up. This was the first time he gave the talk, and he expects to give it many times, so I imagine that many parts of the talk will change. At first, he described this paradigm shift as engineering -> science, but then he described it as system -> language. I think that describing it as a shift from systems thinking to language thinking is a better description.
Richard Gabriel is a Lisp guy. (I'm a Smalltalk guy). Lisp is like Smalltalk in that there isn't a clear boundary between the language and the library that it uses. Arithmetic and control flow are in the libraries, not the language. (Well, Lisp has some in the language and some in the libraries, while Smalltalk has it all in the libraries, except that the compiler cheats and hard codes some of them, so there isn't really much difference in the end.) In Lisp, a program is an S-expression, and editing programs is editing S-expressions. In Smalltalk, a program is a collection of objects, and editing programs is editing objects. When you are programming, you are building a system, and you program with the system.
System thinking is different from language thinking. Language thinkers want a precise description of a language. They want a book that describes the whole thing, or (if they are academics) they want a formal semantics for the language. But system thinkers know that as soon as they start to use the system, it will change. They want to understand how the system works, but are prepared to look at the system itself to figure out the details.
These are two ways of thinking, and there are advantages and disadvantages of each. Smalltalk is a wonderful example of systems thinking. I think all software developers should know at least one system that exemplifies systems thinking. Lisp is good. Forth is another old example. Naturally, I think that Smalltalk is great and am happy to help people learn it but I think the importance of learning systems thinking is more important than the particular system you learn.
Unfortunately, learning a system is harder than learning a language. You have to do more than just learn the syntax, you have to learn the libraries, the patterns of naming and of coding, and usually the tools. (Which, if this is a system, are extensible.) That is one of the advantages of language thinking. But systems thinking has long-term advantages, because once you taylor the system to your needs then you can become very productive.
To lean smalltalk syntax, you need to read ONE page of text (see Syntax section on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalltalk).
Now, to learn a smalltalk libraries and how to use them, you need to use browser not the text editor, otherwise your will just waste a lot of time.
I think that it is like factor of 10 difference in time, between trying to understand some code by reading in textual format and navigating it using browser and! debugger.
In smalltalk system a living objects could tell a lot about themselves and help you learn how to use them much faster than if you look at it as a static chunks of text, because you won't grasp the idea at all.
I've been playing with Squeak Smalltalk (and its close cousins, Pharo and Cuis) for a while now. There's no better way to learn Smalltalk than by using the system already provided.
I've devised a series of short youtube tutorials ranging in length from 50 seconds to 15 minutes that show how to take advantage of Squeak's ultra-cool features within a few minutes of first starting the system.
In fact, the very first line of code demos the OOP-ness of Squeak. Squeak from the very start
Python is a pure OOP . Actually this is an easy mistake that newcomers make when they come to python.
Python like smalltalk follows the mantra "Everything is an object". So everything inside python is an object, including built-in types. The difference is that python unlike smalltalk and Java does not force OOP as it allows procedural programming. And this is the trap, it easy to assume that makes python less OOP , but being a snake, is so devlish that does not tell you that even functions are objects ;)
http://www.linuxtopia.org/online_books/programming_books/python_programming/python_ch10s04.html
Going back to smalltalk its IDE is the huge deal here, contrary what other smalltalker may believe. If you like me are heavily disappointed with how non flexible IDEs are you are going to love Squeak's IDE. The IDE goes a great deal making easy to navigate through all the libraries and making you understand what , where and why , something happens. I cant see the benefit of using a text editor. But you can, with file ins and file outs. But doing so you cripple smalltalk into becoming as efficient as other programming languages ;)
I am only studying squeak and pharo for a week now but even for me as a beginner the benefits of the IDE is obvious from the first minute.
The fact that code is fragmented into easy to digest methods, those methods grouped into protocols , protocols grouped to our familiar Classes and Classes grouped to packages. Hence the code is so well organized that I never feel lost, everything belongs somewhere, everything is just a click away, everything is inspectable, browseable , you just select right click and sends you there. And it shows you exactly the code you need rarely more than 10 lines long. This is the IDE. Why would you prefer a text editor that will expose to information that you don't need , don't care and is likely to confuse you ?
Then everything is inside a single image , not a collection of files, your code, your libraries, system libraries , even the language itself. Everything is at your grasp, waiting for you, begging you to test, modify it, use it and abuse it. You are part of the language and the language is part of your, if something does not fit your thinking, change it. This is the IDE. Why you want to go back to the disconnected way of files and folders ?
Then you are start being afraid with all this power, all this flexibility its not unlikely that you will do something that could completely destroy the language and the libraries. Its possible , mistakes can and will happen. Again the IDE jumps in offering you a hand of help, every change is stored in a local cvs system, every change is categorized, stored and monitored any time. No lousy undos and any kind of other nonsense . What you get is old , mature well tested version control. You can change back exactly what you want any time, nothing is lost, no mistake is irreversible.
And if you don't trust you hard driver , the vcs extends online to squeaksource . And does it let you at the mercy of command line ? Hell no . You are offered the simple yet efficient Monticello browser , which will make sure you install and unistall with no conflicts .
And of course you don't want your software to have bugs , do you ? Unit Testing tool is offered to make sure your code is reliable , stable and does exactly what you want how you want it. Again a beautiful yet brilliant GUI is utilized to make complicate tasks a button away.
And because none is perfect , there will be time you will come against the dreadful error. Are you left alone ? You guessed right , a tool again is offered. The debugger. You don't need to call it, you don't need to setup it , you don't even need to figure out how it works. Like all other tools, is simple in design yet sophisticated. Not only it will spot the error , not only will tell you what you did wrong , not only will navigate through back to most basic language elements that trigger the error offering a unique perspective on how exactly the language behave like nothing I have seen before, it also allows you to do live coding. Live coding is the ability to code a program while its code runs. Isn't that impressive and infinitely useful ?
Finally , maybe you are one of those people impossible to please, maybe you still find flaws , omissions and thinks you simple don't like. The IDE is written in smalltalk , smalltalk is written in smalltalk , and the IDE can edit itself and the language, there is nothing you can't change besides some very basic functionality of the language and the VM that is compiled C. And you will guess right if you think you can use all the above tools to do exactly that.
And the tools don't stop here , smalltalk might be not that popular as other languages but it has been here for a very long time and it has some very enthusiastic programmers that love to contribute. And frankly with such an amazing IDE and such a well designed language , while with other languages contributing to them might seem a challenge, in case of smalltalk the challenge is to resist the temptation not to contribute as the IDE makes it so easy.
By the time others still code you will finish your code and actually understand what have you done and why. Thats not a small thing at all . I wish Python had such a good IDE or any other language. But the only thing that comes abit close, from my experience , is Delphi. And even in the case of Delphi I still prefer squeak and pharo.
What I find annoying about other IDEs is that they are not IDES at all, they are nothing more than glorified editors, locked, non flexible , non editable (Unless you are willing to use another programming language and navigate through tons of source code) . Squeak , Pharo and all other smalltalk dialects offer a real elegant IDE offering you really useful tools. Other IDEs better take a deep a look at smalltalk and really understand what it means to be an IDE.
Saying all those good things, smalltalk is far from perfect. And I think its biggest weakness and flaw is lack of some enjoyable and useful documentation that can help beginners jump in head first. Squeak By Example as well Pharo By Example has been a big disappointment for me. They both are still two extremely important books that provide a extremely valuable insight in both platforms , but the quality of documentation is from mediocre to bad at times. The main reason is both books follow a non noob friendly approach. First they send you deep diving in the IDE , introducing you from chapter 1 , to debugger and even unit testing !!! For me this a big mistake, and even though I am far from new to programming had to struggle to follow up what was explained. Then the book itself , lets a lot of unanswered questions. For example the explanation of instance vs class variables is not enough, I would prefer several example that not only show the how but also the why . Several areas of the book are also full of gaps or just hard to follow.
My life got a lot easier when I found this link http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html and from there I downloaded "Smalltalk by Example" which unlike the other book not only it does what it says in the title but makes no assumption on who you are and what you know. I can only highly recommend it. I read that the other books there that are offered freely are very good as well, I will certainly download and read all of them eventually.
Alot of help has been also #squeak at irc.freenode.net, people there has been answering my questions and helping me understand.
Squeak wiki, is ok but not enough, its also not very well organised, and I dont like that comments and discussions appear inside the wiki documentation. So documentation generally can be abit of a struggle for the begginer and certainly Smalltalk IS NOT AN EASY programming language to learn. I hear many smalltalkers say otherwise and I could not disagree more, when I compare smalltalk with python is like night and day. BUT ! Once understand smalltalk , it become much easier to program in it then any other programming language I have learned so far, and I have learned most of them. So in the end I think Smalltalk is a clear win , I also love the FFI library that lets you call any C library with ease, which unleashes serious power for smalltalk.
I dont think you need to learn the language first and then the IDE, its actually a very bad idea for the simple fact that the IDE helps you understand the language and its libraries and any type of code in it. Language and IDE is like brother and sister, yin and yang.
Well, if you decide to learn Eiffel a good book would be "Object-Oriented Software Construction" by Betrand Meyer (he created the Eiffel programming language).
The book provides great insight into object-oriented design using Eiffel. In my humble opinion is one of the best OO books around.
Well, I think I have enough knowledge of cocoa that I can go learn another thing. What would you recommend learning after learning cocoa? (Ex. Core animation, OpenCL, core data)
I really depends what your goals are. If you want to stick to Objective-C, dive into Cocoa Touch if you haven't already. I'd also suggest checking out frameworks such as MacRuby if you want to stick to developing Mac apps, it is pretty sweet.
If you want to go somewhere totally different, I've been messing around with Rails and Android a lot recently.
Learn LISP.
It is fundamentally different from pretty much every other programming language there is. It will force you to think of problems in new ways. Even if you never ever will use LISP in a real world project (I never did) you will become a much better programmer.
Anyone who wants to call themselves a programmer should known about (spent at least a full week with):
C - to know the heavy lifting and how it actually works.
LISP - to understand functional programming.
Smalltalk/Objective-C - to understand real object oriented programming.
Prolog - to understand logic programming.
C++, and any language that derives its OOP design from it, is just C structs with function pointers. Yes Java and C# I look at you too.
Learning PostScript is a good way to broaden your understanding of the drawing model also used by Quartz and AppKit, and can be useful for prototyping your drawing code.
Learn another language. Maybe C/C++ since they are similar. Or maybe C#. Or you can try something completely different such as python, pascal, D or VB.
depends what you aim for
but if you are not strong in C/C++ I would suggest that. A) its what cocoa is based on B) if you want to port your code to other platforms, usually you'll have a good chance of reusing directly the C/C++ withou a lot of changes.
(Ex. Core animation, OpenCL, core
data)
those are just tools, if you want to specialize in iphone then its good practice to look up the various feature, look at the examples and then implement a little example for yourself.
otherwise if you have no precise goal you can also go to the bookstore and pick a random book ^^
What are the most valuable parts of Computer Science studies for Cocoa developers?
Another way I might word this question is:
If I’m not going to go to school for Computer Science but want to be a developer working primarily with Cocoa, what are the things I should make sure I learn that I otherwise might miss by being self-taught, and be worse off for it.
Update: Replaced the term "professional Cocoa developer" with "developer primarily working with Cocoa", in hopes that the intent of my question is somehow clearer.
To be clear, I've been working with Cocoa for two years and am comfortable with Objective-C and the Cocoa frameworks, as well as Cocoa design patterns and the developer toolset, and thus am for the most part fluent with the Mac and iPhone platforms. But I have wondered whether I'm missing important CS or SE elements due to being self taught/no formal training, and not coming from other languages or platforms.
This question is for Cocoa developers.
There are many, but things that come to mind imediatly
-Design Patterns (the Cocoa framework relies on many Design Patterns, if you follow them it will make your life very easy, most obvious example is MVC)
-Algorithms and Data structures(this applies to any framework really)
-Memory Management (No garbage collection on the iphone!)
I would question whether there's really such a thing as a "professional Cocoa developer" (from a philosophical standpoint), or if you would want to be one. There's "professional developer", who may work with Cocoa primarily. A professional developer is language-agnostic and as such has a solid career ahead of him/her. A language- or platform-specific hacker has very limited usefulness.
The question to ask is do you want to be a developer or not? If there aren't any good Cocoa jobs available at the moment, or Cocoa is replaced by something newer and better and very different, a professional developer changes gears and follows. Are you OK with that?
If so, a computer science degree definitely cannot hurt. If not, you should probably not put all your eggs in the Cocoa basket and pursue a non-CS degree.
In addition to what's been pointed out already, I highly recommend reading "The Pragmatic Programmer". It contains a wealth of information on how to write software, how to manage projects, and how to develop your career, advice that goes well beyond the documentation you look at every day in Xcode. Some of the topics they cover are ones that you might have been exposed to during a standard computer science degree.
"Professional" is a relative term.. but anyways, this is what i had to go through so that i could easily learn a new language anytime i want and also master it:
started by learning a simple console language (pascal or c++, but i consider pascal being simpler than c/c++), then learned another language just to see if i can do it (c++)
i learned a lot of algorithms and data structures, until i was able to recreate them and even create my own
i moved to a visual approach on programming with Visual Basic 6 (another simple one to start with), and tried to copy lots of apps just to see if i can do it
i learned about Object-Oriented Programming and finished by mastering it
from this step on, learning a new language was like a hobby, like playing!
then i wanted to learn some different topics, like design patterns, multithreading, and so on..
moved from windows to mac, and started learning objective-c: because i already knew lots of languages, it took me 5 days to learn objective-c, and yes, i took breaks like any human being :P
after i learned obj-c, i now had to learn cocoa... this one took me a lot of time to learn, and i still don't know it all.. but i do know most of it :D
What are the most valuable parts of Computer Science studies for Cocoa developers?
Learn that it's important to understand the differences between languages, not learning a particular language.
Are you writing numerical method solvers with a Cocoa frontend? You'll want to take numerical methods. Writing a 3-D plugin with a Cocoa UI? Better learn about Catmull-Rom splines.
A good understanding of computer graphics is required if you want to make some good looking animations :)
I've heard a few debates in the past over which is more mature: RubyCocoa or Obj-C/Cocoa... but I have felt that the answers jet right over the "newbie" that would truly appreciate an answer.
So the question is: for a total beginner, with little-to-no programming experience, is it easier to learn Ruby and explore Cocoa via the bridge (then possibly tackle Obj-C) or to straight up jump right into Objective-C and Cocoa.
Both communities are strong and have a plethora of resources, but as many people have pointed out the syntax of Obj-C is just daunting. Perhaps for a true beginner it would be easier to learn Ruby then tackle Objective-C?
Update: I apologize, but when I said "learn Ruby and explore Cocoa" I did not mean to learn programming via RubyCocoa, but rather to learn Ruby (and once one feels confident enough) begin to explore Cocoa with the possibility of leveraging their growing skill-set to tackle Obj-C.
I would not recommend learning to program with RubyCocoa.
I love Ruby and think it's a great language to learn programming, but the RubyCocoa bridge isn't documented well enough that I'd recommend it as a learning environment. You'd be learning general programming concepts, the Cocoa frameworks and the quirks of RubyCocoa all at the same time. That's a lot of stuff to shove into your head.
If you're bound and determined to start with Cocoa, start by learning Objective-C. Otherwise, you could learn Ruby to begin with and then transition to Objective-C once you feel a little more comfortable as a programmer. And once you've done all that, you can use RubyCocoa, but then you'll know enough that it won't make you go crazy.
I would start with what Apple is preaching: Objective-C/Cocoa
Writing Code is the Easy Part
No point really in:
Try to see which is easy, if you are opting for the easy way, you will always get it wrong.. fear not what is hard, for hard is to fear not.
Trying to compare languages/approaches that way, as per the post I added, thinking what's easy/nice/hard in this case is a question of syntax, which ultimately boils down to interpretation, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Depending on what they will ultimately attempt to do with the technology you will find somethings are "easier" than others in one approach or the other..easy is a hard thing to define
Only one question matters: What does one know before being exposed to any of the two approaches? -- you said:
for a total beginner, with little-to-no programming experience
My answer:
Often near where I live tourists ask:
"How do I get to placename X from here?"
People here usually answer:
"If I were you, and I was trying to get to placename X, I wouldn't start from here.."
So.. the answer to your question is:
Neither
Total beginners should always study the basics of programming as per what #Tafkas said.. (not necessarily needing to study OOP languages.. but programming...) before making any kind of decision on what to study and/or implement. (This + requirements gathering)
..Otherwise the people learning these language/technology skills will be just another set of script kiddies on their way to becoming copy paste code monkeys
The problem with starting with RubyCocoa is that you end up learning both ruby and cocoa and the interaction between the two at the same time. I would say learn ruby, or learn Objective-C/Cocoa. Jumping right into RubyCocoa is going to throw you off.
It sounds like your goal is to learn to program in Cocoa, using either Ruby or Objective-C as the language.
While I've never used Ruby (or RubyCocoa, for that matter), my understanding is that Cocoa is written with Objective-C as the primary language, and the bridges (Python and Ruby) come in second. While they generally work well, there are some rough edges that aren't there when using Cocoa from Objective-C.
I would say that you should go the Objective-C/Cocoa route. It might not be bad to start with another language first - C if you want to learn it (which would be useful, since Objective-C is a superset of C), or something like Java if you want to go the OO route.
That's not to say that RubyCocoa doesn't work or isn't useful. It's great for what it does, but I don't think that it is the place to start with Cocoa programming.
I would suggest that if your going to be serious about writing Applications for OSX and/or the iPhone I would highly suggest you get your feet wet with Objective-C and Cocoa.
The reason are simple:
The Documentation from Apple on Objective-C is excellent.
You're going to get more help from the community here at Stack Overflow because there are more Objective-C/Cocoa developers than RubyCocoa. (from what I've seen so far).
The Objective-C Developers are very good at helping each other out and I could not find a better group of developers with open arms to new people learning the language.
Great Developer books are available as well as outside training if you want it.
The big one that I see is that you can NOT develop for the iPhone using RubyCocoa. But if you learn Objective-C/Cocoa you can pretty much dive right into Cocoa Touch.
There is no guarantee that Apple will keep RubyCocoa updated as much as they do with Cocoa.
Don't get me wrong, learning Ruby is a great language and I don't think you can go wrong learning it. However right now if you have the option right now to learn either or, go with Objective-C/Cocoa.
I think you're in for a harder road by going with RubyCocoa if you want to build serious applications for either OS X or especially later for the iPhone.
The main reason is simply being able to find answers to common programming questions that you might have. There is a burgeoning community around Objective-C/Cocoa with a lot of forum support, code snippets, samples, etc. It will be infinitely easier for you to rapidly learn how to you use Cocoa if you understand Objective-C. It will also be easier for your peers to troubleshoot your code and help you out when you get stuck. Objective-C is really not that hard to learn, especially if you have some kind of grounding in OO concepts.
I would suggest to start with an oo language such as c++ or java. After understanding the basic comcepts of oo it should not be to hard to learn objective-c.
The problem with ruby cocoa is that there is no guarantee apple will support this in the future. They have dropped the cocoa-java bridge in the past.
I think this depends on how much the beginner already knows. If you already know object oriented programming, you should definitely learn objective-c. Thinking in paradigms like messaging, delegation, and categories will help a lot to understand the Cocoa system. If you've got a few languages under your belt, but no object oriented programming, then you probably also have enough experience to learn OOP through Cocoa, but understand that it handles things differently from languages like C++. If you have very little programming experience, then ruby may be better in the short term.
One other advantage of objective-c to keep in mind is the manual reference counting memory management paradigm. It can be much easier to deal with than malloc/free, but it doesn't allow the laziness that Java and scripting languages engender.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
My questions is simple!
Would you start learning Smalltalk if you had the time? Why? Why not?
Do you already know Smalltalk? Why would you recommend Smalltalk? Why not?
Personally I'm a Ruby on Rails programmer and I really like it. However, I'm thinking about Smalltalk because I read various blogs and some people are calling Ruby something like "Smalltalk Light". The second reason why I'm interested in Smalltalk is Seaside.
Maybe someone has made the same transition before?
EDIT: Actually, what got me most excited about Smalltalk/Seaside is the following Episode of WebDevRadio: Episode 52: Randal Schwartz on Seaside (among other things)
If you like Ruby you'll probably like Smalltalk. IIRC Seaside has been ported to the Gemstone VM, which is part of their Gemstone/S OODBMS. This has much better thread support than Ruby, so it is a better back-end for a high-volume system. This might be a good reason to take a close look at it.
Reasons to learn Smalltalk:
It's a really, really nice programming environment. Once you've got your head around it (it tends to be a bit of a culture shock for people used to C++ or Java) you'll find it to be a really good environment to work in. Even a really crappy smalltalk like the Old Digitalk ones I used is a remarkably pleasant system to use. Many of the old XP and O-O guru types like Kent Beck and Martin Fowler cut their teeth on Smalltalk back in the day and can occasionally be heard yearning for the good old days in public (Thanks to Frank Shearer for the citation, +1) - Agile development originated on this platform.
It's one of the most productive development platforms in history.
Several mature implementations exist and there's a surprisingly large code base out there. At one point it got quite trendy in financial market circles where developer productivity and time-to-market is quite a big deal. Up until the mid 1990s it was more or less the only game in town (With the possible exception of LISP) if you wanted a commercially supported high-level language that was suitable for application development.
Deployment is easy - just drop the image file in the appropriate directory.
Not really a reason, but the Gang of Four Book uses Smalltalk for quite a few of their examples.
Reasons not to learn Smalltalk:
It's something of a niche market. You may have trouble finding work. However if you are producing some sort of .com application where you own the servers this might not be an issue.
It's viewed as a legacy system by many. There is relatively little new development on the platform (although Seaside seems to be driving a bit of a renaissance).
It tends not to play nicely with traditional source control systems (at least as of the early-mid 90's when I used it). This may or may not still be the case.
It is somewhat insular and likes to play by itself. Python or Ruby are built for integration from the ground up and tend to be more promiscuous and thus easier to integrate with 3rd party software. However, various other more mainstream systems suffer from this type of insularity to a greater or lesser degree and that doesn't seem to impede their usage much.
Well, since you mentioned me by name, I feel I should chime in.
As I said in that podcast interview, and as I have repeatedly demonstrated in my blog at http://MethodsAndMessages.vox.com/, this is "the year of smalltalk". And having now done Smalltalk advocacy for the past ten months, I can see that it really is happening. More customers are turning to Smalltalk and Seaside, and the Smalltalk vendors are all working hard to capture this new influx of attention. More larger Smalltalk conferences are being planned. More job postings are being posted. More blog postings are being made.
If you turn to Smalltalk today, you are not alone. There are many others who are out there as well.
Edit
Well, a number of years later, I'm now recommending Dart instead. It's a great language originated by Google but now owned by an ECMA committee. It runs serverside in node.js style, but also clientside in modern browsers by transpiling to JavaScript. Lots of good books, blogs, help channels, IDE support, public live pastebin. I think it's definitely got legs... enough so that I'm writing courseware to teach it onsite or online, and I'm pretty sure there's a book or two in the works from me. And Gilad Bracha, an old-time Smalltalker is a major contributor to the design, so there's a lot of Smalltalk in Dart.
Smalltalk is a good language to learn, and the great thing is that it only takes a day to do it. It's a lot more than just an academic language. People are building huge, scalable, replicable applications handling billions of dollars. They just don't talk about it much. See, for instance, GemStone and Orient Overseas Container Lines:
A Shipping Industry Case Study.
Seaside is a good reason to learn Smalltalk, but I don't think you'll find it orders of magnitude better than Rails.
The thing that convinced me was GemStone. I really like Gemstone's GLASS (GemStone, Linux, Apache, Smalltalk, Seaside). The killer part of that is GemStone, which handles all the object persistence for you mostly without you thinking about it. Seeing some of their demos and hearing about what people are doing with GemStone reset my idea of what "big application" meant.
The part that bugs me the most about Rails is the object-relational mapping. That's nothing against Ruby because it sucks just as hard in GLORP (which handles ActiveRecord for Smalltalk), or Perl, or anything else. Mapping objects to database tables is just painful. With GemStone, thinking about the database disappears, so the work with the database disappears too. It's like a huge stone (or a troop of monkeys) is taken off my back.
> couldn't find a Smalltalk development environment that didn't cost both arms and a leg
Google - free smalltalk
Cincom Smalltalk, Squeak, GNU Smalltalk
Learning Smalltalk will give you a grounding in object oriented software development from the perspective of the man who invented OO (Alan Kay). The idea of a overlapping windowing environment came from Smalltalk.
A stumbling block to learning Smalltalk is that it is a message passing system with a strange syntax for flow control like:
i < 60
ifTrue: [ self walk ]
It has a very mature class library that has a consistency I've not seen too many places. The class library in all environments (even commercial Smalltalks) has available source which allows you to learn from the masters of the language. When programming Smalltalk, I always ask the question how is it done in the environment.
Smalltalk is generally implemented in an image which is a live environment for all the objects in your system.
The interactive debugger really seperates Smalltalk from Ruby.
Seaside is the web development framework and has given Smalltalk a new spotlight. It is a continuation based environment that allows for intra-hit debugging and a smooth Rich Client type development experience (top application flow can be designed in a single method). It's integration with script.aculo.us has been done in such a way that it is easily called from within Smalltalk.
Nigel, one quote I have is this:
Although it's now a long time since I did anything with it, I nominate Smalltalk, I still haven't come across anything quite like it for being able to transfer thoughts into computer code. It's not just the language: It's the wonderful browser environment, the libraries, and the culture of writing clear, well-designed code as quickly as anything else can crank out spaghetti. When the participants at JavaOne were extolling how Java was so much more productive than anything else, I needed a brown paper bag. Oh well, back to sorting out my classpaths... -- Martin Fowler (Software Development Magazine, Jan 2001)
I found it here.
Would disagree with the poster who reckons you wouldn’t use Smalltalk for large apps – that’s precisely where it shines. But I have created fairly groovy (note lowercase) prototype apps in under a week too.
I learned OO in ST starting in 92, incredibly glad I did so. It gave me a real background in OO. Thinking in classes. No types. ST has a real emphasis on messaging. If you want to know something send an object a message and get an answer. IMHO, the ethos and the IDE really encourage you to do the right thing with your coupling and cohesion.
In my Java day job, I’m stuck with files, generics, IDE’s like eclipse that are orders of magnitude less productive that any ST IDE. I was using ST the only time I finished a development ahead of schedule. In fact it was so productive, and we got so much reuse I had to be moved off to another project, as I had nothing to do! (Ok, maybe I could have spent time learning to estimate...)
Download squeak, find a good book and play. Only downside is that if your day gig is using Java or C#, you’ll end up wishing you could use ST. You’d get home sooner.
Chris Brooks
I recommend everybody to learn Lisp (Scheme) or Smalltalk.
Smalltalks have wonderful IDEs which you dont want to miss once you got over the culture shock. And yes, there are more than one free ones: Squeak, Dolphin, Smalltalk/X, and Visualworks (Non-Comercial).
Lisp may be even cleaner in its mathematic foundation, though.
regards
PS: actually I recommend learning both !
I do not know Ruby..
Smalltalk is a pure OO language. If you feel the need to really understand OO, and not just the simulated OO of most popular 'OO' languages (like C++, Java, etc), then I would recommend that you play with smalltalk.
In smalltalk everything is an object, with attributes, behavior and meta. In the simulations you have data types that you use in your objects.
I would say play with it, you will only benefit.
I'm totally in your shoes. Im using RoR and looking into Smalltalk land. Here's some pros & cons I find important:
Pros:
Mature & stable environment
Fast development cycle
Makes you think more and write less
Cons:
Requires different thinking
Still didn't quite grasp it
It's quite funny how I got to know about Smalltalk. It was this one thing that keept popping up in Google results when searching for Lisp and Erlang stuff. One day I checked it out and was amazed with nice windows environment. Few moments later I've found Aida/Web framework. I was hooked and started learning Smalltalk through web development with this framework.
Still not quite there, but it's so damn interesting I just can't sit still... :-) I'm having fun again.
Would not start learning it if I had the time. Why not? Because it would be more productive and lucrative financially to learn C# or Java.
On the other hand if your a hobbyist, and would like to go on an archeological dig, then I'd suggest spending some time looking at the What, When, Why and how of smalltalk by researching Alan Kay. Fascinating story and an incredible person (after all, he earned the Turning Award). Then maybe play with squeak a little to get a feeling for the language. After this you might have a newly found respect/understanding of blocks, closures, and Object Oriented principles.
I know and use Smalltalk, have for about 15 years, still maintaining it, and would not recommend Smalltalk to a friend. Why not? Employment is a good thing to have and keep getting. Although you can learn a lot from Smalltalk you can't easily turn that into gainfully being employed in this day and age.
Also, you appeared to be excited over Seaside and I would assume the Seaside/GemStone partnership. I've used GemStone for quite some time and the two together are very appealing. I hope they can get the market share and momentum required to be successful.
Don't! If you really start learning it, you might not want to programm in something else anymore ever.
This may be not true, if you are a lisp programmer.
Absolutely, learn Smalltalk! This is 2015 and Smalltalk is on the rise again, thanks to Pharo. Pharo is FREE. Pharo is evolving quickly into a powerful enterprise tool. At Version 4.0, and soon to be 5.0, it has matured a great deal in just four years!
Then there's Amber, which is Smalltalk for the web. It's also FREE and evolving quickly.
Despite Smalltalk's reputation, this is not your father's Smalltalk. Modern Smalltalk is exciting and promising.
It's true that Smalltalk jobs are not (yet) plentiful. But if enough of you aggregate to a new wave of Smalltalkers, then the industry will adapt to it and we'll see wider adoption of Smalltalk in business. The question is, do you have the vision?
I was taught Smalltalk in one of the first graduate college level Object-Orient Programming courses (circa 1988). The teacher thought it best to start was a "pure" OO langauge,before moving on to a more trendy one (we did a bit of C++ at the end of the semester).
By that measure, it's still best to start with pure OO, although these days we have Java & C#, both of which are "nearly-pure" OO -- close enough that you can get by ignoring the non-OO features of them, and limiting yourself to the Pure-OO subset of the langauges.
If you want a better understanding of Extreme Programming (and even Scrum) I'd say yes.
Why impatient Java programmers need to learn Smalltalk:
http://www.dafydd.net/archive/2010/why-smalltalk-isnt-just-another-language/
I've been a software engineer for quite a few years now. I've heard people bring up Smalltalk a few times, and certainly Smalltalk has been around since about 1980, but it's one of those languages that's never seemed to make it into the software mainstream. Sort of like Objective C, CLIPS, PL/I, etc--something you may have heard of, but something that most folks have never programmed in.
I probably wouldn't take the time to learn Smalltalk unless I needed to for a particular job. I looked at some Smalltalk tutorials and examples briefly a few years back, and it looks like it has some clear advantages for certain aspects of OO programming (like the message concept seems cool). But sadly, it is not mainstream, and doesn't seem to be gaining much momentum.
This thread has become very actual for me. I'm planning for a Software migration to a web-application. It's a database based software. I'm especially checking the alternatives
1) Rails
2) Seaside
If I can get the figures for the Gemstone/S as Database, I'll consider that also. So for me it means I have to learn Smalltalk (better) than before. Because it could be that it will be my work for the next 15 years. You would (and should not) work with software you don't like for that long ;-). I've the impression Gemstone/S is one of the "killer" applications. But persistence of Objects still is a very difficult field....
1) Yes! It's always good to learn a language. If you are going to learn a language, make it a powerful, influential language that can be learnt easily and quickly.
Smalltalk remains a pre-eminent language and environment for learning OO concepts.
It is all objects, all the way down. This makes for a really consistent approach to working.
Integers are instances of Class Integer. Strings are a collection of character objects. Classes are singleton instance objects for the class they define.
Control structures work by sending get messages to instances of Class Boolean.
Even anonymous methods (blocks of code, aka blocks) are objects.
Everything is done by sending a message to an object. The syntax can be fitted on a postcard.
The clarity of the concepts and their implementation in Smalltalk mean that you can develop ways of thought which transfer directly into Java, Ruby and C#. I expect it's true for Python, too.
It's so good for making the concepts clear that a major UK University used Smalltalk to train 5,000 people a year in object-oriented computing.
Squeak 5, has just been released. It has gained major performance increases from its new Cog/Spur VM, which features with progressive garbage-collection.
Pharo 4 has a lovely clean-looking desktop theme. The next version, Pharo 5, will be released soon. It will move to using the Cog/Spur VM, it will have about 5,000 classes in the release, and additional packages of classes are readily available from the net via the Configuration Browser tool.
Squeak 5 is performant even on first-gen Raspberry Pis, and is almost 50% faster on the new $5 Raspberry Pi zero. $99 buys you a Raspberry Pi 2, screen and case - running a mature, fully feature-complete IDE.
Leading edge research is being done on co-ordinated, distributed OO systems in Smalltalk (e.g. Naiad and Spoon).
Some of the world's largest corporate databases are run on Smalltalk - including tracking of 60% of the world's shipping containers, and trading systems in the world's largest bank.
You can use Smalltalk as a sort of super-powered CoffeeScript, writing in Amber Smalltalk and transpiling to JavaScript, running in the browser.
Squeak, Pharo, and Amber are all Free, Open-source, open-licenced languages and environments.
Squeak and Pharo provide write-once, run anywhere facilities for MacOS, Windows and Linux. (Possibly RiscOS, too).
Dolphin Smalltalk is targetted firmly at native Windows look-and-feel, and lets you compile closed .exes of your finished work for distribution to end users. Further development of Dolphin by the vendor has stopped, but it is completely functional, and, like all Smalltalks, designed to be massively extensible. (Did I mention that Pharo now has 5,000 classes, compared to Squeak's 3,000? Pharo is a fork of Squeak 3.9)
**There is a How-to guide for installing and starting Squeak, Amber, Pharo, Cuis and Dolphin at: **
http://beginningtosmalltalk.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/how-to-get-smalltalk-up-and-running.html
The Seaside web framework runs on Squeak and on Pharo. It's a wonderful mature tool, as is the more traditional AidaWeb framework.
VisualAge, VisualWorks and Gemstone all provide enterprise-grade robust systems. Gemstone provides an infinitely scalable object database with transactions and persistence.
2) Yes - I do already use it.
I learnt it via the Open University, and was immediately productive in Ruby (a copy of the Pickaxe book and the library reference by my side). It helped me enormously with Java, and with Xerox Moo-code.
I have just returned to it to write apps to control manage and distribute responsive, massively multi-platform mobile apps.
I expect that soon I'll be re-writing my JavaScript mobile apps using Amber, too.
I don't really know what you're looking for.
If you are looking for a different language to write in, I'd think that would depend heavily on the libraries available. I know neither Ruby nor Smalltalk, but it seems likely that the most efficient way to write Ruby on Rails-sorts of applications may not be Smalltalk.
If you are looking to learn the ideas behind Ruby, this might be a very good move. I don't have anything quantitative, but I always felt better about using tools (such as language systems) if I knew more than just the tools, if I kmew the ideas behind them or how they worked.
If you want to learn different sorts of object-oriented languages, you might well want to learn Smalltalk (if it differs significantly from Ruby), something like Java or C++, and perhaps also the Common Lisp Object System.
If you just want to learn something different, Smalltalk may well be a good choice. I'd also suggest Common Lisp, and other people will doubtless have other suggestions (can you get a good Forth system nowadays?).
Yes, I'm interested in it. Tried to start once already, but couldn't find a Smalltalk development environment that didn't cost both arms and a leg.