why smalltalk more productive than say ruby? or common lisp?

[johannes falcone]

or haskell?

[S***@ControlQ.com]

Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: why smalltalk more productive than say ruby? or common lisp?
or haskell?

Gavino, you are a douchebag in every group you touch. Go away.

[johannes falcone]

woa woa woa fuck you man

[johannes falcone]

Post by johannes falcone
or haskell?

I have heard the following reasons:
1 the message passing paradigm is uniform and covers many problems in a uniform way that allows the programmer to think one way and let the smalltalk environment abstract away hard to deal with details and cumbersome drudgery
2 the image can be used to store state

[johannes falcone]

Post by johannes falcone
or haskell?

So smalltalk with 1 paradigm, covers most use cases......

To some extent it seems to abstract away more web problems than common lisp.

As far as I can see anyhow....

Now lisp claims to do well when things get complex, can smalltalk keep up there?

[Richard Sargent]

Post by johannes falcone

Post by johannes falcone
or haskell?

So smalltalk with 1 paradigm, covers most use cases......
To some extent it seems to abstract away more web problems than common lisp.
As far as I can see anyhow....
Now lisp claims to do well when things get complex, can smalltalk keep up there?

Let's assume a given individual has a finite amount of "intellectual capability" and that the communication overhead related to team size effectively reduces the effective total intellectual capability that can be brought to a task.

Now, if you use a programming language that practically requires you to be a rocket scientist, I think we can agree some of that intellectual capability is being spent on using the language rather than solving the problem. So a language that was "designed for children" to program with is going to tax that available intellectual capability less than a more complex language.

And if you use a programming language that historically requires fewer programmers to accomplish the same tasks, the communication overhead also taxes the available intellectual capability less. [Anecdote: two logistics companies merged in Europe (I believe). They had equivalent IT systems. One needed 225 staff, other other needed 25. The merged company went with the Smalltalk platform.]

In terms of complexity, the vast majority of Smalltalk commercial users are using it for complex systems where reliability, flexibility, adaptability, and time to market are all critical. Can Smalltalk keep up? Better to turn the question around and ask what other languages can keep up with Smalltalk.

[johannes falcone]

Post by Richard Sargent

Post by johannes falcone

Post by johannes falcone
or haskell?

So smalltalk with 1 paradigm, covers most use cases......
To some extent it seems to abstract away more web problems than common lisp.
As far as I can see anyhow....
Now lisp claims to do well when things get complex, can smalltalk keep up there?

Let's assume a given individual has a finite amount of "intellectual capability" and that the communication overhead related to team size effectively reduces the effective total intellectual capability that can be brought to a task.
Now, if you use a programming language that practically requires you to be a rocket scientist, I think we can agree some of that intellectual capability is being spent on using the language rather than solving the problem. So a language that was "designed for children" to program with is going to tax that available intellectual capability less than a more complex language.
And if you use a programming language that historically requires fewer programmers to accomplish the same tasks, the communication overhead also taxes the available intellectual capability less. [Anecdote: two logistics companies merged in Europe (I believe). They had equivalent IT systems. One needed 225 staff, other other needed 25. The merged company went with the Smalltalk platform.]
In terms of complexity, the vast majority of Smalltalk commercial users are using it for complex systems where reliability, flexibility, adaptability, and time to market are all critical. Can Smalltalk keep up? Better to turn the question around and ask what other languages can keep up with Smalltalk.

awesome!