Why use Ruby instead of Smalltalk? [closed]

Question

Ruby is becoming popular, largely from the influence Ruby on Rails, but it feels like it is currently struggling through its adolescence. There are a lot of similarities between Ruby and Smalltalk -- maglev is a testament to that. Despite having a more unusual syntax, Smalltalk has all (if not more) of the object-oriented beauty of Ruby.

From what I have read, Smalltalk seems to have Ruby beat on:

• Maturity (developed in the 1970's)
• Stability
• Commercial support
• Distributed source control (understands structure of code, not just text diffing)
• Several implementations of the VM
• Cross-platform support
• The seaside web framework as a strong alternative to Rails

It seems like Ruby is just reinventing the wheel. So, why don't Ruby developers use SmallTalk? What does Ruby have the Smalltalk doesn't?

For the record: I'm a Ruby guy with little to no experience in Smalltalk, but I'm starting to wonder why.

---

Edit: I think the ease-of-scripting issue has been addressed by GNU Smalltalk. As I understand it, this allows you to write smalltalk in regular old text files, and you no longer need to be in the Smalltalk IDE. You can then run your scripts with:

gst smalltalk_file

Unconcern

Because everyone is still waiting for "Smalltalk on Snails"? – Sailer

Technically it's called 'Seaside' (www.seaside.st) and runs fairly quickly on the Gemstone VM which has a JIT compiler. There'a also a port of Ruby to the Gemstone VM, called Maglev. – Tommie

After going through all these comments below, being a ruby fan for last 5 years, now I am tempted to learn smalltalk asap – Ornelas

GNU Smalltalk is almost the only free implementation which is not hard-coupled with GUI. I think this is still critical. – Gorrian

The "distributed source control" link is broken. – Scrupulous

Answer 1

I'm more of a Pythonista than a Ruby user, however the same things hold for Ruby for much the same reasons.

• The architecture of Smalltalk is somewhat insular whereas Python and Ruby were built from the ground up to facilitate integration. Smalltalk never really gained a body of hybrid application support in the way that Python and Ruby have, so the concept of 'smalltalk as embedded scripting language' never caught on.
  
  As an aside, Java was not the easiest thing to interface with other code bases (JNI is fairly clumsy), but that did not stop it from gaining mindshare. IMO the interfacing argument is significant - ease of embedding hasn't hurt Python - but this argument only holds moderate weight as not all applications require this capability. Also, later versions of Smalltalk did substantially address the insularity.

• The class library of most of the main smalltalk implementations (VisualWorks, VisualAge etc.) was large and had reputation for a fairly steep learning curve. Most key functionality in Smalltalk is hidden away somewhere in the class library, even basic stuff like streams and collections. The language paradigm is also something of a culture shock for someone not familiar with it, and the piecemeal view of the program presented by the browser is quite different to what most people were used to.
  
  The overall effect is that Smalltalk got a (somewhat deserved) reputation for being difficult to learn; it takes quite a bit of time and effort to become a really proficient Smalltalk programmer. Ruby and Python are much easier to learn and to bring new programmers up to speed with.

• Historically, mainstream Smalltalk implementations were quite expensive and needed exotic hardware to run, as can be seen this net.lang.st80 posting from 1983. Windows 3.1, NT and '95 and OS/2 were the first mass market operating systems on mainstream hardware capable of supporting a Smalltalk implementation with decent native system integration. Previously, Mac or workstation hardware were the cheapest platforms capable of running Smalltalk effectively. Some implementations (particularly Digitalk) supported PC operating systems quite well and did succeed in gaining some traction.
  
  However, OS/2 was never that successful and Windows did not achieve mainstream acceptance until the mid 1990s. Unfortunately this coincided with the rise of the Web as a platform and a large marketing push behind Java. Java grabbed most of the mindshare in the latter part of the 1990s, rendering Smalltalk a bit of an also-ran.

• Ruby and Python work in a more conventional toolchain and are not tightly coupled to a specific development environment. While the Smalltalk IDEs I have used are nice enough I use PythonWin for Python development largely because it has a nice editor with syntax highlighting and doesn't get underfoot.
  
  However, Smalltalk is was designed to be used with an IDE (in fact, Smalltalk was the original graphical IDE) and still has some nice features not replicated by other systems. Testing code with highlight and 'Show it' is still a very nice feature that I have never seen in a Python IDE, although I can't speak for Ruby.

• Smalltalk was somewhat late coming to the web application party. Early efforts such as VisualWave were never terribly successful and it was not until Seaside came out that a decent web framework got acceptance in Smalltalk circles. In the meantime Java EE has had a complete acceptance lifecycle starting with raving fanboys promoting it and finally getting bored and moving onto Ruby ;-}
  
  Ironically, Seaside is starting to get a bit of mindshare among the cognoscenti so we may find that Smalltalk rides that cycle back into popularity.

Having said that, Smalltalk is a very nice system once you've worked out how to drive it.

Tommie

I think the class library point is off base. I know both Smalltalk and Ruby and the class libraries are very similar. Any problems I had learning one, I would have had learning the other. Having done more ruby first, it made the Smalltalk libraries much easier to learn. They are remarkably similar in most places. I don't think anything about the class library or language itself makes Smalltalk more difficult than Ruby. – Waltman

Both VW and VA Smalltalk used to have a reputation for a steep learning curve because of the size of the class libraries. This was quite widely regognized at the time. I learned Smalltalk off an old DOS version of Digitalk Smalltalk/V, which had a much smaller class library. The manual for that was about the same size as the PP Ruby book, and like that book the class library reference was about half of the total page count. However, the class libraries for VW and VA are much, much bigger. – Tommie

Answer 2

When I leave my house in the morning to go to work, I often struggle with the decision to make a left or right turn out of my drive way (I live in the middle of a street). Either way will get me to my destination. One way leads me to the highway which, depending on traffic, will probably get me to the office the quickest. I get to drive very fast for at least part of the way and I have a good chance of seeing a pretty girl or two on their way to work :-)

The other way allows me to travel down a very enchanting, windy back road with complete tree cover. That path is quite enjoyable and of the two approaches is definitely the more fun, though it means that I will get to the office later than I would have had I taken the highway. Each way has its merits. On days that I am in a big hurry, I will usually take the highway though I may run into traffic and I also increase my chances of getting into an accident (if I am not careful in my haste). Other days I may choose the woody path and be driving along, enjoying the scenery and realize that I am running late. I may try to speed up, raising my chances of getting a ticket or causing an accident myself.

Neither way is better than the other. They each have their benefits and risks, and each will get me to my goal.

Almatadema

Which one is the interstate, and which is the windy back road with tree cover? lol – Jasmin

Charlie: that is what makes it zen :) – Frangos

And which language has the prettier girls? – Condign

Answer 3

I think your question is somewhat missing the point. You shouldn't choose, you should learn them both!

If you truly are in a position that you can choose the next framework(vm, infrastructure) then you need to decided what to use and can ask a specific question with pros and cons from the perspective of what your application is inteded to do.

I have used smalltalk (love it) and ruby (love it).

At home or for open source project I can use every language I like, but when doing work I have to adopt.

I started to use ruby (at work) because we needed some scripting language that behaved more-or-less equally under solaris,linux and windows(98,2000,xp). Ruby was at that time unknown to average-joe and there didn't exist any rails. But it was easy to sell to everyone involved.

(Why not python? the truth ? I once spend a week hunting for a bug that happened when a terminal converted my space to a tab and the intending got messed up).

So people started to code more and more in ruby because it was so relaxing, enjoying and not a cloud on the sky.

Paul Graham sums it up

It's true, certainly, that most people don't choose programming languages simply based on their merits. Most programmers are told what language to use by someone else.

and

To be attractive to hackers, a language must be good for writing the kinds of programs they want to write. And that means, perhaps surprisingly, that it has to be good for writing throwaway programs.

And when were at the Lisp land try to replace LISP with smalltalk

Ruby’s libraries, community, and momentum are good

So if LISP is still more powerful than Ruby, why not use LISP? The typical objections to programming in LISP are:

1. There aren’t enough libraries.
2. We can’t hire LISP programmers.
3. LISP has gone nowhere in the past 20 years.

These aren’t overwhelming objections, but they’re certainly worth considering.

and

Now, given a choice between a powerful language, and popular language, it may make excellent sense to pick the powerful one. But if the difference in power is minor, being popular has all sorts of nice advantages. In 2005, I’d think long and hard before choosing LISP over Ruby. I’d probably only do it if I needed optimized code, or macros which acted as full-fledged compilers.

Sulfapyrazine

Ahem, "the past 20 years"?!?! I think you meant, "the past 51 years". :-) – Bulge

@Bulge - I'd go with 20; LISP was actually quite big in certain circles at one point, but (ViaWeb notwithstanding) no new 'killer apps' have really been seen since the 1980s. However, LISP based technologies actually got quite a lot of funding in the '60s, '70s and '80s; people really thought LISP was going places for quite a while. – Tommie

@Bulge yeah, if you ignore things like continuations, multimethods, macros, tail call optimisations, off the top of my head. – Fossa

I always find these kind of arguments less agreeable. There is no best language and any software engineer can do lisp, scheme, ruby, php or c or whatever. And if he can't, he can learn it in 2 weeks. A language is just a tool. You don't need to sleep with it. – Notebook

Answer 4

I would say the opposite: Smalltalk syntax is one of the simplest and powerful programming language syntaxes.

Insufficiency

Just want to say amen! – Polygynous

Answer 5

It's true the languages are very much alike. The shallow way to interpret that is to call Ruby a Smalltalk cover band. The more reasonable interpretation is that Smalltalk's closed system isolated it, while Ruby's participation in the Unix ecology and habit of appropriating features from every language under the sun gives it an infinitely gentler adoption curve and effortless integration with kickass tools like Git.

Giles Bowkett

Diaconicon

Answer 6

Guess who said this? (quote is close, maybe not exact): "I always thought Smalltalk would beat Java. I just didn't know if would be called 'Ruby' when it did so."

Drum roll ....

...

The answer is ... Kent Beck

Jasmin

Answer 7

what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't?

• Massive, current support by major platforms (IronRuby and jRuby) that enrich the set of libraries
• Evangelists like Dave Thomas who, for years, have been touring around the country preaching the gospel of their language. I have seen Dave at Java conferences stating he doesn't know Java and that he prefers Ruby.
• Strong, current real estate on the bookshelves
• The creator of Ruby has said that he thinks about the programmer: Ruby's syntax seems to have this Zen appeal. It is hard to pin down, yet seems to galvanize the fans.
• Creative, dynamic presentations like Giles and this one that gain mindshare

I think your point is well-taken. As a friend once put it, Ruby might be "old wine in a new bottle" vis-a-vis Smalltalk. But sometimes the new bottle matters. A wine has to be in the right place at the right time.

Coverley

Your first bullet point is off. JVM and .NET VM support mean crap for Smalltalk since each implementation runs on a VM already (how else can they run so well on multiple operating systems, right?) Ruby's syntax is more complicated than Smalltalk's. It's hard to pin down which is part of the problem with it ;) – Milner

Yes part of the reason why some people might use jruny/ironruby is the relative immaturity of the ruby vm, but there are some really nice libraries available for .net/jvm that they may want to use that don't have equivalents elsewhere plus its a lot easier for some business to mesh with their java/c# code bases. – Balkan

Of course, I've found cherishing "strong, current real estate on the bookshelves" to be one penalty of a complex language without a live, dynamic environment. When I coded in C++, I had shelves full of gotcha books. After moving to Smalltalk (via Ruby), I don't miss them one bit. Relying on the IDE itself for most guidance, I rarely leave the image for more than a quick google search, and have gentrified some of that shelf real estate with the Game of Thrones series ;) – Rollmop

Answer 8

Stephane Ducasse has some great Smalltalk books available here:

http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html

so although the Smalltalk community is not as prolific as the Ruby and Rails communities, there is still some great help out there.

Warbeck

Answer 9

Beats me. I spent a year checking out Ruby and doing some smallish projects to see how I liked it. I guess I'm a Smalltalk bigot because every time I'd sit down to work with Ruby I'd sigh and think "I'd really rather be doing this in Smalltalk". Finally I gave in and went back to Smalltalk. Now I'm happier. Happier is gooder.

Which of course begs the question, "Why?". In no particular order:

1. Because the IDE blows away anything else I've ever worked with. This includes a bunch of platforms from ISPF on IBM mainframes to Microsoft's Visual (.*), include things such as Visual Basic 4-6, Visual C++ (various incarnations), Borland's Turbo Pascal and descendants (e.g. Delphi), and stuff on DEC machines in both character mode and under X-Windows.
2. Because the image is a beautiful place to live. I can find what I want in there. If I can't figure out how to do something I know that somewhere in the image is an example of what I'm trying to do - all I have to do is hunt until I find it. And it's self-documenting - if you want to see the details of how something works you just open a browser on the class you're interested in, look at the method, and that's how it works. (OK, eventually you'll hit something that calls a primitive, and then it's "here there be dragons", but it's usually understandable from context). It's possible to do similar things in Ruby/C++/C, but it's not as easy. Easy is better.
3. The language is minimal and consistent. Three kinds of messages - unary, binary, and keyword. That describes the priority of execution, too - unary messages first, then binary messages, then keyword messages. Use parentheses to help things out. Dang little syntax, really - it's all done with message sends. (OK, assignment isn't a message send, it's an operator. So's the 'return' operator (^). Blocks are enclosed by square brace pairs ([ ] ). Might be one or two other 'magic' bits in there, but darn little...).
4. Blocks. Yeah, I know, they're there in Ruby (and others), but dang it, you literally can't program in Smalltalk without using them. You're forced to learn how to use them. Sometimes being forced is good.
5. Object-oriented programming without compromise - or alternatives, for that matter. You can't pretend that you're "doing objects" while still doing the same old thing.
6. Because it will stretch your brain. The comfortable constructs we've all gotten used to (if-then-else, do-while, for( ; ; ), etc) are no longer there so you have to Learn Something New. There are equivalents to all the above (and more), but you're going to have to learn to think differently. Differently is good.

On the other hand this may just be the ramblings of a guy who's been programming since the days when mainframes ruled the earth, we had to walk five miles to work through blinding snowstorms, uphill both ways, and computers used donuts for memory. I've got nothing against Ruby/Java/C/C++/, they're all useful in context, but give me Smalltalk or give me...well, maybe I should learn Lisp or Scheme or... :-)

Headlight

I thought the question was "What does Ruby have the Smalltalk doesn't?" – Benne

@Mauricio, And @Bob answered: "Beats me." – Ergo

Brilliantly put, love it! Why can't something be heaps better despite being less popular? If you don't agree, I daresay you don't get Smalltalk ;-) – Electrotherapeutics

@aaamos - thank you. I suspect the reason Smalltalk is not popular is because of #6, and to a lesser extent #5. Smalltalk ain't your mama's "same-old-syntax" kind of place - it's different. For example, if you know C then C++, Java, and C# all feel pretty comfortable. And the "how" and "why" of Smalltalk behavior can be somewhat mind-twisting. (I'll hazard that if a new Smalltalker doesn't feel like their head is getting twisted off, either they're so brilliant they grokked it immediately, or they're just not getting it. Yeah, I wonder how the "brilliant" thing would feel :-). – Ruhnke

Have you tried debugging with pry (and plugins), and live coding with hot reloads of saved files? It was the best programming experienced I had. – Leyden

Answer 10

Smalltalk: people forwards ifTrue: [think] ifFalse: [not thinking]

Ruby: people think forwards unless thinking backwards

1) Smalltalk's RPN-like control flow by messages is like Lisp - it's regular and cool but weirds people out.

2) Ruby lets people write code using the idiomatic way people speak - do blah unless there's a reason not to.

update rewrote the Smalltalk sample to actually be more legal code..

Propagandize

English is probably the one of the worst ways of expressing programming instructions. I mean it causes enough confusion amongst people, let alone computers. Do blah? Who should do blah? on what? Also your ruby code makes no sense and isn't valid. Should be: Ruby: people.think_forwards unless people.think_backwards? and the SmallTalk should be: Smalltalk: (people think_forwards?) ifTrue:[people think_forwards]) – Asperges

You could also add a method called unless:aBlock to the BlockClosure class from the Kernel-Methods Category that would evaluate aBlock and ifTrue: evaluate the calling block. – Planimetry

@donalbain, I wasn't suggesting these were literal programming statements but indicative of statement order. I thought that was fairly obvious when I wrote my response. – Propagandize

@Asperges Very true, in fact it exists. More Ruby-like control flow lives at github.com/randycoulman/SuffixConditionals . Andy, there is a bug in your code - backward people don't think, so you should've sent #ifFalse: ;-P – Rollmop

Smalltalk has bad marketing: weird syntax and image based. Ruby is more normal yet has a good quality syntax too. Java is typed and compiled which reassures clients. I wouldn't mind learning and using a weird syntax if it didn't affect my own "marketing" as a programmer. – Leyden

Answer 11

Community! Ruby and especially Rails has such a great community. When messing around with smalltalk it seemed that there were not as many screen casts, articles, blog posts, etc. written about Smalltalk.

Cochabamba

Answer 12

Ruby is the current buzz language. It's easier to market software built with it right now than a language developed in the 70s.

Elisavetgrad

The fact that it was "developed in the 70s" has nothing to do with how hard it is to develop with. – Nunnery

and my comment has nothing to do with development. – Elisavetgrad

Sorry, I tend to misread when I'm tired, so I have to spend my vacation time apologizing to people I have bullied. – Nunnery

Answer 13

Ruby (or any other language) is more popular than Smalltalk (or any other language) because we live in a chaotic universe. To wit:

• From Dave Thomas himself, "[after the] video on 'How to Build a Blog in Ten Minutes'... Ruby went from being a nice little niche language, to being 'a language you wrote Rails apps in'" (Ruby Conference 2010 keynote).
• Early Smalltalk vendors charged prohibitively
• Smalltalk, because it was invented (ahead of its time) 30 years ago, occurs to many as an old, "dead" language (like FORTRAN)
• corporations consider Smalltalk such a competitive advantage that they hide its use

While the languages are similar in OO features, Smalltalk's killer advantage is the live, open environment (the much-misunderstood 'image'). After you check out this example of programming in Smalltalk, the debate is over.

Rollmop

Answer 14

You answered the question in your first line: "Ruby is becoming popular"

• There are a lot of interesting modules, projects and such based around Ruby.
• If you have trouble doing something in Ruby, it will be trivial to find help somewhere.
• Ruby is installed on a lot of computers now (It's included by default on OS X, many Linux distros, and there are good installers for Windows) - I've not seen smalltalk installed by default on any machine I've used..

I would say wether or not one language is superior to another is irrelevant.. As an example, PHP may not be the "best" language ever, but I would still consider using it over Ruby on Rails (a "better" tool for creating websites) because it is so widespread.

Basically, specific pros and cons of a language are far less important than everything surrounding it - namely the community.

Kimi

Answer 15

You can find a job pretty easily doing Ruby. Although I really love Smalltalk, it's virtually impossible to get into the Smalltalk niche. There is work around in it, but if you didn't get in when it was popular it's virtually impossible now.

All the other reasons pale into insignificance because you need to spend plenty of time, focused on real work to learn a language properly. If you're not independently wealthy, the best way to do that is exposure to it at work.

Undergird

Answer 16

I think everyone who has been working with Ruby for a while recognizes its deep debt to Smalltalk. As one of these people, what do I like about Ruby over Smalltalk? I think from a strictly language perspective, it's the sugar. Ruby is deliberately a very syntax-sugary language, whereas Smalltalk is a very syntax-minimal language. Ruby is essentially the Smalltalk object model with Perlish syntax sugar. I happen to like the sugar and find it makes programming more fun.

Ambert

Ruby has a different object model to Smalltalk though. I'd say "influenced by" but not the same. You can write ruby programs in a prototype-based way avoiding the need to create new classes. Whilst this is unusual, Smalltalk just doesn't support that. – Indican

I like smalltalk, because i can invent and use own syntax sugar whenever i need it. There's no need for sugar if you already can do everything with minimal syntax. – Insufficiency

Answer 17

For me its not so much a case of what Ruby has, but what Ruby hasn't. And the thing that it doesn't have is the need for a VM and complete environment.

Smalltalk is great - its where I learnt OO concepts, but for ease of use I go for Ruby. I can write Ruby code in my favourite editor and run it form the command line.

So, for me, thats what I choose Ruby over Smalltalk.

Warbeck

But go-ahead and learn Smalltalk too. – Warbeck

As per my edit: GNU Smalltalk allows you to use your favorite editor and run from the command line. – Unconcern

Yes - Thanks - just had a look and downloaded a copy! – Warbeck

Well, it also doesn't have a great web framework. Rails is ok, but it's no Seaside – Harlanharland

Any smalltalk platform allows you to write smalltalk code in your favorite editor. But if you like to be disconnected from live world, it is your choice. Just know that you losing about 90% of productivity by doing it. – Insufficiency

@IgorStasenko my question would be, is there an equivalent of that '90% productivity' boost in Ruby? – Numidia

@MarcelValdezOrozco Unfortunately not, and the reason cuts to the very heart of the issue. Smalltalk is not a programming language, but prototype Dynabook software - a re-imagination of a computer where its full power is available to all users with no context switches. Part of what McLuhan meant by "the medium is the message" is that your choice of tools restricts your capacity to think. Smalltalk is those productivity-boosting tools. In contrast, Ruby is YAPL, so the idea of a "turtles-all-the-way-down-to-the-metal IDE written in itself" doesn't naturally occur as a priority. – Rollmop

Answer 18

Ruby is to Smalltalk as Arabic numerals are to Roman numerals. Same math, easier syntax.

Pastiness

That's the wrong way around. Smalltalk has much easier syntax. – Harlanharland

Only if you think in rpn. Most people don't. I actually take pride in the fact that this post keeps getting up and down votes. – Pastiness

RPN? Java: foo.bar() Perl: foo->bar() Python: foo.bar() Smalltalk: foo bar So other than having a simpler syntax, if you claim Smalltalk is RPN, you have to say that all major OO languages are "RPN". – Chrissy

Just compare the amount of Ruby keywords compared to the amount of Smalltalk keywords. And that, is just the beginning! Smalltalk's syntax fits on a napkin, try doing that with Ruby and you will have a hard time. – Slavery

Answer 19

Because Smalltalk distributions were priced in multiples of $1000USD whereas Ruby is free.

Valenzuela

Answer 20

Use Ruby because it has might have business legs, Smalltalk doesn't.

I can tell you from personal experience. Still using Smalltalk, love it, and have used a couple flavors. Although Smalltalk is a great language, and is everything you mentioned, you wont likely convince the average CIO/CTO to use Smalltalk on a new project. Of course, you might even have a hard time convincing a conservative CIO/CTO to use Ruby. In the end you have to be very careful if you want sustained long term commercial support and the ability to find off-the-street employees that can support your systems in the future. As an example, Smalltalk was a really big thing in the early 90's and IBM invested heavily into it in the late 90's. For IBM Smalltalk was going to be the next language for all business applications. IBM put Smalltalk on everything including their mainframe systems. Java became popular, took over the market, and Smalltalk became a niche player. Over a year ago IBM dumped the language (their term is sunset). Also, take a look at the History. ParkPlace and Digitalk where the first major commercial players in the Smalltalk arena, they merged and then went out of business.

Chrystalchryste

Smalltalk "has business legs" - if you already have the right background and can find the right opportunities... – Indican

Your title is way overstated. Not all business is limited by short-sighted CTOs. As Paul Graham said when he thoroughly debunked the myth that a mainstream language is safer: "You will have a hard time convincing the pointy-haired boss to let you build things in Lisp... But if you work for a startup that doesn't have pointy-haired bosses yet, you can... use technology that your competitors, glued immovably to the median language, will never be able to match." – Rollmop

Answer 21

I've done a little Smalltalk - the IDE is one thing I remember - does Ruby have good IDE support?

Petropavlovsk

Yes. TextMate is great, Eclipse support is good, and Emacs has a mode for it that is decent. – Kelleekelleher

If you think "TextMate/Eclipse/Emacs" is comparable to Smalltalk's built-in IDE, you haven't seen a real Smalltalk! – Chrissy

I still miss select->'Show It' from IDE's on the systems I build with today - with one Exception: SQL Server's SQL development tools will let you highlight a selection and execute it as a query. Smalltalk is influential if nothing else! – Tommie

The IDE getting nearest to Smalltalk it IMHO ArachnoRuby. It's better integrated than any Emacs/TextMate etc. However it seems people are quite happy with a few windows open running diverse tools Regards – Cipolin

@Cipolin Re "people are quite happy with a few windows open running diverse tools"... "Programming languages teach you not to want what they cannot provide. You have to think in a language..." - Paul Graham – Rollmop

Answer 22

Use whatever makes you more powerful and faster to beat your challenge.

For us, a little in house framework, we built in top of seaside is really our superpower.

I love the RoR community, it has the right attitude. That's very very valuable. But at the same time, technologically, seaside makes you stronger against more complicated problems.

You can do great seaside web apps using open-source stuff.

dabbledb was a sartup based on seaside and, hey! Avi sold it to twitter in june this year!

I say you don't need to wait for others to approve your initiative.

Just go for it. Make it done. Show us that works.

You're not alone. We are on the same boat.

Ruisdael

Answer 23

I love both Smalltalk and Ruby - but have found that Ruby is more applicable to what I do daily, and is closer to my heart (practically speaking). What does Ruby offer that Smalltalk doesn't?

• Text-based scripting
• Low implementation requirements (runs in more places)
• Easier to learn and justify (Perl and Python programmers will have no trouble
• Easier to move programs around - text files!
• Interfaces well with native environment
• Anywhere Java runs, jRuby runs...
• Bigger and much more active community

Some have mentioned gst (GNU Smalltalk); the problems still hold.

Detector

Which "places" does Ruby run that Smalltalk does not? Pharo Smalltalk, for example, runs on Mac, Windows, Unix, without an OS at all (can Ruby do that?), and is being ported to various mobile platforms (Android, iOS). – Rollmop

How about FreeBSD and OpenBSD? (no, I don't know the answer...) How about Solaris and HP-UX and OpenVMS? I also would not want to use either Ruby or Smalltalk on Android or iOS. The biggest problem isn't the OS, but memory: Ruby will run in considerably less memory than Smalltalk. – Detector

Apparently, there is a FreeBSD VM (see the last bullet of the OP at forum.world.st/SOB-minutes-3-6-12-td4453817.html). I'm not sure about the others. As for Android and iOS, whether you would like to use Smalltalk there is a different question than whether it is available ;-) People have been posting about successful experiments on those platforms, of which I've seen some promising screencasts. – Rollmop

That reminds me too - I recall a Smalltalk for the Palm. – Detector

Answer 24

Interesting perspective from Robert Martin (from RailsConf 2009): "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby, Too"

Schutt

That talk presumes smalltalk is dead (it's not) and that ruby is similar enough to smalltalk in space and time that it might suffer the same (non-)fate. It isn't. – Chrissy

Answer 25

As a latecomer to discussion, the main problem with Smalltalk and Lisp is that you can't run them with CGI or FastCGI on shared hosting.

The unwashed masses are never going to use them if they need VPS or dedicated servers to use them. IMHO Seaside is superior to almost anything out ther, but will it run on Dreamhost or Webfaction?

Mascia

I wonder if this is still much of a barrier now that e.g. Digital Ocean is offering VPS's for $0.007 / hr – Rollmop

Answer 26

I would go further than Jonke's answer, and say there are now a large number of languages that have a very strong community, almost enough to suit every taste, and a subset of these have mainstream recognition (i.e. your manager will let you use them at work as well).

It's easy to learn the basics of a language, but to actually use it effectively you need to invest enough time to learn the platform and the tools, as well as the syntax and the idioms. IIRC, McConnell claims that it takes about three years to become truly proficient.

Given those things, it's hard to justify spending a lot of time on languages like LISP and Smalltalk, although they are interesting and perhaps educational to look at.

Titanic

Answer 27

I think the BIGGEST difference is that Ruby is much more similar to perl in terms of USEAGE. Smalltalk never got a foothold into the "scripting" languages.

The VM is really cool and I hope ruby will have something similar to it so we can treat everything on our OS that is written in ruby as object in memory space, however until then I simply enjoy Ruby's terse, short syntax, the ability to just write a tiny script and reuse it later. Ruby got all the advantages of perl and the OOP is much more similar to smalltalk than perl's OOP hack.

Sabec

Answer 28

I think part of the problem is the development-environment-is-the-runtime. This gives a lot of power, but it also presents a larger learning curve.

Here is a hello world tutorial.

This is very different from other languages where I just need to know how to open a text editor and copy and paste text, hit save, and run a compiler. I HAVE to know how to use the environment. That tutorial doesn't even show me how to create a basic program (which is likely more a fault of that tutorial) that I can run.

There is definately a higher cost of just getting things going than most other languages.

Most languages have some nice eye-catching code that they can show off. I haven't seen that with Smalltalk. I also think that there is some stigma to Smalltalk because it has been around so long and it is still relatively obscure.

Recrystallize

At the bottom of the page: self inform: 'Hello, World!'. I agree that the learning curve is steeper, but using "hello, world" as proof, I think, is too much. :) – Hodge

My point was to see how to write something simple like hello workld, the tutorial has to tell you which windows you need to open. The names and uses of the windows aren't something I'm going to be able to guess at. It took me a little clicking around just to find the windows it was talking about. – Recrystallize

As per my edit: GNU Smalltalk allows you to use your favorite editor and run from the command line. – Unconcern

ruby -e 'puts "hello world"' – Numidia

pharo [image filename] -e "self inform: 'hello world'" – Rollmop