Home > Archive > Smalltalk > November 2005 > New to Smalltalk; which implementation?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
New to Smalltalk; which implementation?
|
|
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-16, 3:59 am |
| Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
implementation should I use to get started? My requirements are:
- Free of charge
- Open Source
- Cross-platform (esp. Windows, Linux, and AIX)
- Something I can compile, modify, hack, port, extend, etc. myself
I've started using GNU Smalltalk to learn the language, although Susie
also looks very promising, and does not have any license restrictions.
I tried Squeak, but both the GUI and the web site seem dated and
difficult to navigate.
Thanks in advance for your advice!
-Jeff Schwab
| |
| Friedrich Dominicus 2005-11-16, 3:59 am |
| Jeffrey Schwab <jeff@schwabcenter.com> writes:
> Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
> implementation should I use to get started? My requirements are:
>
> - Free of charge
>
> - Open Source
>
> - Cross-platform (esp. Windows, Linux, and AIX)
>
> - Something I can compile, modify, hack, port, extend,
> etc. myself
Have a look yourself at
http://www.smalltalk.org
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
| |
| fawad313@gmail.com 2005-11-16, 7:04 pm |
| Hi, I'm also new in smalltalk territory, i found cincom visualworks
good. You can download the non-commercial ver for free from
smalltalk.cincom.com
Happy Programming!
Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
> implementation should I use to get started? My requirements are:
>
> - Free of charge
>
> - Open Source
>
> - Cross-platform (esp. Windows, Linux, and AIX)
>
> - Something I can compile, modify, hack, port, extend, etc. myself
>
> I've started using GNU Smalltalk to learn the language, although Susie
> also looks very promising, and does not have any license restrictions.
> I tried Squeak, but both the GUI and the web site seem dated and
> difficult to navigate.
>
> Thanks in advance for your advice!
>
> -Jeff Schwab
| |
| Claudio 2005-11-16, 7:04 pm |
| VisualWorks is an excelent option, but it is not " - Free of charge
". You can get a non-commercial version but It's only for
evaluation/educational/non-commercial projects, So I think the best
option for You is Squeak. You can also have another look yourself at
http://www.whysmalltalk.com/smallta...ments/index.htm
Good Luck!
Claudio
| |
|
| There's another free Smalltalk called "Smalltalk/X", follow this link.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeffrey Schwab
Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
implementation should I use to get started? My requirements are:
- Free of charge
- Open Source
- Cross-platform (esp. Windows, Linux, and AIX)
- Something I can compile, modify, hack, port, extend, etc. myself
I've started using GNU Smalltalk to learn the language, although Susie
also looks very promising, and does not have any license restrictions.
I tried Squeak, but both the GUI and the web site seem dated and
difficult to navigate.
Thanks in advance for your advice!
-Jeff Schwab
| |
| Eugene Beschastnov 2005-11-17, 7:58 am |
| I think the best choice for language learning is VisualWorks. Squeak is
good too, but it is a little too "hardcore" and "newbie-hostile" (it
has higher learning curve).
| |
| Eugene Beschastnov 2005-11-17, 7:58 am |
| VisualWorks also has very good documentation.
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| Eugene Beschastnov wrote:
> VisualWorks also has very good documentation.
>
Thanks, it sounds like VisualWorks might be the best option. I can't
find any pricing information on their website, though. Does anyone feel
like disclosing how much they've paid for the various license types, or
know where I can get more info?
| |
| gregarican 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Thanks, it sounds like VisualWorks might be the best option. I can't
> find any pricing information on their website, though. Does anyone feel
> like disclosing how much they've paid for the various license types, or
> know where I can get more info?
>From the threads I've come across this question might be the closely
guarded secret akin to the location of the Holy Grail or the innermost
secrets of the Shriners. Can't understand why the pricing for a
commercial product should be such a secret, but that's another story
:-)
Good luck though!
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| gregarican wrote:
> Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
>
>
>
>
> guarded secret akin to the location of the Holy Grail or the innermost
> secrets of the Shriners. Can't understand why the pricing for a
> commercial product should be such a secret, but that's another story
> :-)
>
> Good luck though!
Thanks, I kind of figured that might be the case. It's unfortunate.
I'm not going to send Cincom a bunch of information about myself just to
get ballpark prices on their licenses. Oh, well. :(
| |
| Eric Clayberg 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| "Jeffrey Schwab" <jeff@schwabcenter.com> wrote in message
news:vtAef.935$q93.430646@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
> implementation should I use to get started? My requirements are:
>
> - Free of charge
> - Open Source
> - Cross-platform (esp. Windows, Linux, and AIX)
> - Something I can compile, modify, hack, port, extend, etc. myself
You could also use the free, eval version of VA Smalltalk. It is fully
functional and not time bombed.
http://www.instantiations.com/VAST
It can't be used for shipping applications, but it is free, comes with
complete Smalltalk source, supports Windows, Linux and AIX, and be hacked to
yorur heart's content.
-Eric Clayberg
Sr. Vice President of Product Development
Instantiations, Inc.
mailto:clayberg@instantiations.com
http://www.instantiations.com/vast
| |
| Chris Uppal 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Thanks, I kind of figured that might be the case. It's unfortunate.
> I'm not going to send Cincom a bunch of information about myself just to
> get ballpark prices on their licenses. Oh, well. :(
You may be jumping the gun -- given that your stated aim is to /learn/
Smalltalk, and that VW is freely available for non-commercial use (such as --
to pick an example entirely at random -- learning Smalltalk ;-), why not use
the system that best suits your immediate needs now and leave other
considerations until later when you'll be better able to judge whatever issues
(licensing or technical) arise then ?
Actually the same observation applies to some of your other conditions: do you
actually need to use a cross-platform implementation /now/ ? How much hacking
are you likely to be doing in the first while -- do you really /need/ (at this
stage) to be able to modify the VM (all Smalltalks are very open about the
class-library code, but only a few open up the VM itself) ?
-- chris
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| Eric Clayberg wrote:
> "Jeffrey Schwab" <jeff@schwabcenter.com> wrote in message
> news:vtAef.935$q93.430646@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
>
>
> You could also use the free, eval version of VA Smalltalk. It is fully
> functional and not time bombed.
>
> http://www.instantiations.com/VAST
Thanks!
Base Product:
• VA Smalltalk (includes 12 months of support & upgrades)
...................... $6, 995
Wow. Maybe I'd better not get addicted. "Hey, kid, the first one's
free..."
> It can't be used for shipping applications, but it is free, comes with
> complete Smalltalk source, supports Windows, Linux and AIX, and be hacked to
> yorur heart's content.
That's great. I didn't see anything about source code... By "hack" do
you just mean "play with?" Of course, that's nice to do, too. :)
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| Chris Uppal wrote:
> Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
>
>
>
>
> You may be jumping the gun -- given that your stated aim is to /learn/
> Smalltalk, and that VW is freely available for non-commercial use (such as --
> to pick an example entirely at random -- learning Smalltalk ;-), why not use
> the system that best suits your immediate needs now and leave other
> considerations until later when you'll be better able to judge whatever issues
> (licensing or technical) arise then ?
I got the impression that the various implementations were not very
compatible. E.g., I've seen warnings about whether underscores can be
used for assignment, and characters like ! have a special meaning in GNU
Smalltalk that they don't seem to have in Squeak. For that reason, I
wanted to get started with a Smalltalk that I might really want to stick
with over the long haul. In fact, I would be very grateful for an
overview of the incompatibilities and quirks of the modern implementations.
> Actually the same observation applies to some of your other conditions: do you
> actually need to use a cross-platform implementation /now/ ?
The sooner the better. I'm doing multiple-platform development now.
Portability is one of the reasons I wanted a language with a large,
truly portable standard library. If it's not portable, it's not very
useful to me; at least, not at work.
> How much hacking
> are you likely to be doing in the first while -- do you really /need/ (at this
> stage) to be able to modify the VM (all Smalltalks are very open about the
> class-library code, but only a few open up the VM itself) ?
I don't /need/ to learn Smalltalk at all, but I would really like to
start hacking (or contributing to an existing project) right away. For
example, this:
http://www.croquetproject.org/
looks interesting. I also don't feel I'll really understand the
language until I've looked under the hood a little. Most of all, I feel
like porting the VM is something I'll end up doing sooner or later
anyway, so I want to make sure I can at least cross-compile the whole
thing from source for some existing platform. I know a guy who has
ported squeak to a bare microprocessor, but that was a long time ago,
and he didn't really seem inclined to explain it to me.
If this sounds really crazy, then please let me know where I'm going wrong!
| |
| gregarican 2005-11-17, 7:03 pm |
| Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> The sooner the better. I'm doing multiple-platform development now.
> Portability is one of the reasons I wanted a language with a large,
> truly portable standard library. If it's not portable, it's not very
> useful to me; at least, not at work.
Not to promote a different language in this newsgroup, but if this is
what you are looking for Ruby is a great choice. It operates on
Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac OS, and is comprised of only a single
free, open source branch. Smalltalk on the other had appears to be
rather fractured in terms of different implementations.
I am looking to Smalltalk because there's one project that I need to
port to PDA platforms like Palm OS and Windows Mobile and Ruby had
trouble in that area. If you aren't interested in PDA areas for
portability Ruby is an option that I would check out if I were you. The
language is highly OO, derives certain things from Smalltalk, and is
fun to learn. Check out http://www.ruby-lang.org for details...
| |
| James T. Savidge 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| Greetings,
Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Thanks, it sounds like VisualWorks might be the best option. I can't
> find any pricing information on their website, though. Does anyone feel
> like disclosing how much they've paid for the various license types, or
> know where I can get more info?
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/Cinc...AR+Pricing+work
James T. Savidge, Thursday, November 17, 2005
| |
|
|
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| gregarican wrote:
> Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Not to promote a different language in this newsgroup, but if this is
> what you are looking for Ruby is a great choice. It operates on
> Windows, Linux, BSD, and Mac OS, and is comprised of only a single
> free, open source branch. Smalltalk on the other had appears to be
> rather fractured in terms of different implementations.
>
> I am looking to Smalltalk because there's one project that I need to
> port to PDA platforms like Palm OS and Windows Mobile and Ruby had
> trouble in that area. If you aren't interested in PDA areas for
> portability Ruby is an option that I would check out if I were you. The
> language is highly OO, derives certain things from Smalltalk, and is
> fun to learn. Check out http://www.ruby-lang.org for details...
>
Thanks. I have a coworker who swears by Ruby already. I tried jumping
on the Python bandwagon, but it just didn't seem to offer much over Perl
and C++. Still, the Smalltalk just seems so clean, it's portable at the
bytecode level, multiple implementations are available... Maybe I
should try Ruby for my immediate needs, and just play with Smalltalk on
the side.
| |
| gregarican 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Thanks. I have a coworker who swears by Ruby already. I tried jumping
> on the Python bandwagon, but it just didn't seem to offer much over Perl
> and C++. Still, the Smalltalk just seems so clean, it's portable at the
> bytecode level, multiple implementations are available... Maybe I
> should try Ruby for my immediate needs, and just play with Smalltalk on
> the side.
Good points. A negative about Ruby would be it's relatively slow (works
from interpreted scripts) unless you look into the YARV (Yet Another
Ruby Virtual Machine) project. Another negative is that certain aspects
of it are still pretty Linux-locked. For example if there is a Ruby
library or extension you want to build into your local installation a
lot of the build scripts are geared for Linux. Of course there is a
package installer called Ruby Gems that is an alternative solution.
If you are familiar with Perl or Python making the jump to Ruby isn't
that big of a departure. Compared to languages like C++ and Java I
wouldn't go back to them unless I was forced to :-)
| |
| Doug Swartz 2005-11-17, 9:57 pm |
| On 17-Nov-2005, Jeffrey Schwab <jeff@schwabcenter.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> Base Product:
> • VA Smalltalk (includes 12 months of support & upgrades)
> ...................... $6, 995
>
> Wow. Maybe I'd better not get addicted. "Hey, kid, the first one's
> free..."
It is pretty expensive for use as an individual. It's expensive, but not
completely out of reason for corporate development, though. Remember,
there aren't any runtime or distribution costs. It would certainly be nice
if Instantiations had a non-commercial license like VW. Eric, does your
agreement with IBM preclude such a thing?
>
>
> That's great. I didn't see anything about source code... By "hack" do
> you just mean "play with?" Of course, that's nice to do, too. :)
All the source code is there for you to hack at, play with, modify, and
experiment with, except for the VM.
Doug Swartz
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-18, 3:58 am |
| Doug Swartz wrote:
> On 17-Nov-2005, Jeffrey Schwab <jeff@schwabcenter.com> wrote:
>
>
[color=darkred]
>
>
> All the source code is there for you to hack at, play with, modify, and
> experiment with, except for the VM.
Does that mean that the entire thing would run equally well on someone
else's VM? If so, is it legal to ship IBM's library code as part of a
commercial application?
| |
| Sean M 2005-11-18, 3:58 am |
| > Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
> implementation should I use to get started? My requirements are:
>
> - Free of charge
>
> - Open Source
>
> - Cross-platform (esp. Windows, Linux, and AIX)
>
> - Something I can compile, modify, hack, port, extend, etc. myself
>
> I've started using GNU Smalltalk to learn the language, although Susie
> also looks very promising, and does not have any license restrictions. I
> tried Squeak, but both the GUI and the web site seem dated and difficult
> to navigate.
Try Squeak with the Look and Feel Enhancement patch. It makes Squeak look
"Nicer"
Personally I think you'll find Squeak is hard to get around in at first, and
then after a few days of bashing your head against the monitor, you'll start
to get a feel for navigating around.
Personally I would suggest Dolphin 6 CE, but a) It's not out yet b) isn't
open source, and c) is windows based. But it will be free, and it is great
:)
| |
|
| > Personally I would suggest Dolphin 6 CE, but a) It's not out yet b) isn't
> open source, and c) is windows based. But it will be free, and it is great
> :)
I agree, I heard people talking about it - got on the beta program and
haven't had so much fun in a long time. I've always loved Smalltalk the
language - but the environments have always been very 80's, and if you've
used Eclipse of IntelliJ in the last little while - your expectations on the
IDE front are pretty high.
To learn with - Dolphin is awesome! Just the code completion will make
learning easier. The nice Find bar strip at the top of the UI that completes
as you type is also a big win. Its all so much fun... so much that I ended
up buying a new (pre-release) copy becuase the professional version also has
slick refactoring tools and the personal code mentor (the checks things as I
type).
There are also nice icons for creating classes and creating methods - that
just make it easier to get started when everything is new. The introductory
help is very good too.
I used VA-Smalltalk professionally many years ago, and it was very good -
but it always looked a bit "un modern". I haven't checked out the latest
version since Instantiations took over. They write very good stuff - so
probably its had a makeover that makes it feel exciting again. (By the way -
many, many years ago - Eric answered a Smalltalk question for me and
encouraged me to keep going... I still have the printout tucked into my copy
of Dan Schafers Smalltalk book... well I stopped for a while but am still
coding in Smalltalk and having lots of fun... so thanks Eric!)
Tim
| |
| Chris Uppal 2005-11-18, 7:57 am |
| Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> I got the impression that the various implementations were not very
> compatible.
That's correct, they are -- by and large -- different /dialects/ not just
different /implementations/.
> E.g., I've seen warnings about whether underscores can be
> used for assignment, and characters like ! have a special meaning in GNU
> Smalltalk that they don't seem to have in Squeak.
Squeak is odd in this way. The Squeak world resolutely refuses to switch to
the syntax that /everybody/ else has been using for ages. (But see below)
The '!' thing in GSt is different. Since GSt is not (yet?) IDE based (or not
intended /only/ for use in an IDE) it needs to use the "fileout" syntax. Most
Smalltalks also use that syntax, but only for fileouts ;-) The difficult it
is trying to workaround is that Smalltalk syntax is not intended for use
outside an IDE, and so (for instance) the syntax for methods is not
self-delimiting.
With those two caveats (and ignoring some non-standard extensions) Smalltalk
syntax is common across all implementations. The differences primarily lie in
the class libraries (most noticeably in the GUI features).
> For that reason, I
> wanted to get started with a Smalltalk that I might really want to stick
> with over the long haul.
That makes sense. But since you mention:
> http://www.croquetproject.org/
it would make sense to start with the Smalltak that underlies that project --
Squeak.
But if you don't want to start by learning Squeak (and I wouldn't blame you),
then learning any of the Smalltalks will give your the grounding you need for
programming in /any/ Smalltalk (most importantly the mental attitude that goes
with Smalltalk -- all languages have their own mindsets, and it takes time to
learns a new one, but that is the biggest single value in learning a new
language IMO).
> In fact, I would be very grateful for an
> overview of the incompatibilities and quirks of the modern
> implementations.
Hmm.. partial, brief, not very well informed (I only use Dolphin), but
nevertheless opinionated:
VW:
Big, powerful, fast.
Very comprehensive class libs.
Seriouly clunky UI (being worked, on but nowhere near yet).
Confusing.
Cross platform.
Free for NC use, E-pricing otherwise.
VASt:
See VW. (Not the same as VW but similar strengths and weaknesses)
Squeak:
Strange.
"Indiferent" quality code base.
Fairly comprehensive class libs.
Cross platform.
Open VM.
Free.
GSt:
Intended for scripting (so no real IDE).
Fairly comprehensive class libs.
Cross platform.
Open VM.
Free-as-in-speach (and free).
ST-MT:
Fast.
Very windows specific.
Very good OS integration (so question of class libs not
so important since Windows has it all anyway).
IDE not too hot (unless it's improved in the last few years).
Not free.
Dolphin:
Very windows specific.
Very good OS integration (so question of class libs not
so important since Windows has it all anyway).
Code base of classic elegance. (Drifting off a little in recent
years).
The best UI in the business.
Not free, although there is a free entry-level edition.
There are several others that I know nothing, or almost nothing, about.
BTW, when I say "IDE" please don't think "editor with integrated debugger" --
that's what IDE means in /other/ languages.
> I also don't feel I'll really understand the
> language until I've looked under the hood a little.
Fair enough. But most[*] of the action in Smalltalk lies above the VM
interface.
([*]Implementations differ in their philosophy on this, some (Squeak, VW) put
platform-specific code into the VM so the /image itself/ (let alone the code
base) is portable. Others (Dolphin ST-MT) put almost no functionality into the
VM (little more than a GCed heap) and very nearly all the interesting stuff
happens in Smalltalk running on top of that.)
-- chris
| |
| Doug Swartz 2005-11-18, 7:57 am |
|
On 17-Nov-2005, Jeffrey Schwab <jeff@schwabcenter.com> wrote concerning
VAST:
> Does that mean that the entire thing would run equally well on someone
> else's VM?
No. Most of the code would be portable, but, unlike Java, no-one has ever
tried to "standardize" Smalltalk VM implementations. Mostly, this is a
good thing. For instance: Some people want deep OS integration; Some
people want completely portable application code. Different Smalltalk
vendors offer implementations to meet these different needs.
> If so, is it legal to ship IBM's library code as part of a commercial
> application?
Of course, it's legal if you have a legal VAST license. Otherwise, no.
Doug Swartz
| |
| Bob Nemec 2005-11-18, 7:02 pm |
| <...>
> Hmm.. partial, brief, not very well informed (I only use Dolphin), but
> nevertheless opinionated:
>
> VW:
> Big, powerful, fast.
> Very comprehensive class libs.
> Seriouly clunky UI (being worked, on but nowhere near yet).
> Confusing.
> Cross platform.
> Free for NC use, E-pricing otherwise.
> VASt:
> See VW. (Not the same as VW but similar strengths and weaknesses)
A minor point about "seriously clunky UI" ... having used both (the past few
years VA + WindowsBuilder + VA Assist ... so VA7 today) I'd say the UI tools
in VA blow VW away. Sounds like Pollock will be a huge improvement, but
WindowBuilder is simply awesome. It's a few years old, but still solid.
Bob Nemec
Northwater Objects
| |
| David Given 2005-11-18, 7:03 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article <437db828$3$38043$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>,
"Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> writes:
[...]
> Hmm.. partial, brief, not very well informed (I only use Dolphin), but
> nevertheless opinionated:
If you're happier with small systems, then there's also the Smalltalks in
the Little Smalltalk family:
Little Smalltalk:
Tiny, portable, public domain, easy to understand.
Not Smalltalk-80 compatible (uses a cut-down class library)
A bit hard to find these days
Some versions have an IDE.
Public domain
PDST:
Based on Little Smalltalk, but considerably improved.
*Really* hard to find these days.
No IDE (script-based only)
Public domain
Susie:
Based on PDST!
Currently maintained
http://susie.dargos.com/
No IDE (script-based only); CGI interface
Public domain
SmallWorld:
Little Smalltalk's successor
Entirely written in Java; will run as an application or applet
http://budd.eecs.oregonstate.edu/~budd/SmallWorld/
Has an IDE!
License unknown.
These have the advantage that they're simple enough to understand, unlike
vast systems like the commercial Smalltalks and GNU Smalltalk.
- --
+- David Given --McQ-+ "I told you to make one longer than another, and
| dg@cowlark.com | instead you have made one shorter than the other --
| (dg@tao-group.com) | the opposite." --- Sir Boyle Roche
+- www.cowlark.com --+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDfhCcf9E0noFvlzgRAgcNAKCYuWBJaGx5
9ocU0bG/O1rn+qHJ9QCgsfFR
HuvrlQYRfEW31t1zy04Kye0=
=GWEw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
|
| Terry Raymond 2005-11-18, 7:03 pm |
| One other aspect about the Cincom pricing model. Because you can
obtain the software for non-commercial use the NC version has
turned into a "pre-release" license. This means you can use the NC
version until you sell your first product, then you need to purchase
a license.
"James T. Savidge" < jsavidge_spammers_should@get_a_new_job_t
exas.net>
wrote in news:437D2F2E.6070208@get_a_new_job_texas.net:
> Greetings,
>
> Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
>
> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/Cinc...oes+VAR+Pricing
> +work
>
> James T. Savidge, Thursday, November 17, 2005
| |
| Eric Clayberg 2005-11-18, 9:57 pm |
| "Jeffrey Schwab" <jeff@schwabcenter.com> wrote in message
news:cY8ff.609$xD5.960759@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> Base Product:
> • VA Smalltalk (includes 12 months of support & upgrades)
> ...................... $6, 995
Which, BTW, is a lot less than what it would have cost soming from IBM in
the past.
If you own any other commercial Smalltalk, a competitive upgrade price of
$1995 is available.
Hint: there are some fairly inexpensive coimmercial Smalltalk's that you
could upgrade from.
> That's great. I didn't see anything about source code... By "hack" do
> you just mean "play with?" Of course, that's nice to do, too. :)
As with most Smalltalk dialects, VA Smalltalk comes with source to all of
its classes. You can pretty much change anything that you like.
-Eric Clayberg
Sr. Vice President of Product Development
Instantiations, Inc.
mailto:clayberg@instantiations.com
http://www.instantiations.com/vast
| |
| Eric Clayberg 2005-11-18, 9:57 pm |
| "Doug Swartz" <swartzbrown@huntel.net> wrote in message
news:437d5212$1@news.totallyobjects.com...
>
> It is pretty expensive for use as an individual. It's expensive, but not
> completely out of reason for corporate development, though. Remember,
> there aren't any runtime or distribution costs. It would certainly be nice
> if Instantiations had a non-commercial license like VW. Eric, does your
> agreement with IBM preclude such a thing?
At the moment, all that we have is the free eval version. That version is
fully functional and not time bombed. It does include a nag screen at
startup announcing that it is an eval version. It is a great option for
learning Smalltalk or building add-on products. You can't use it for
building packages Smalktalk apps (actually you can, but those will include
the nag screen as well).
-Eric Clayberg
Sr. Vice President of Product Development
Instantiations, Inc.
mailto:clayberg@instantiations.com
http://www.instantiations.com/vast
| |
| Eric Clayberg 2005-11-18, 9:57 pm |
| "TimM" <dolphin.news.macta@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:dlk7cs$r93$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> I used VA-Smalltalk professionally many years ago, and it was very good -
> but it always looked a bit "un modern". I haven't checked out the latest
> version since Instantiations took over. They write very good stuff - so
> probably its had a makeover that makes it feel exciting again.
We hope so. ;-)
VAST 7 includes VA Assist as an integrated component which considerably
modenizes the look of the product (toolbars, color syntax, drag/drop
everywhere, spell checking, auto completion, etc.).
> (By the way - many, many years ago - Eric answered a Smalltalk question
> for me and encouraged me to keep going... I still have the printout tucked
> into my copy of Dan Schafers Smalltalk book... well I stopped for a while
> but am still coding in Smalltalk and having lots of fun... so thanks
> Eric!)
You're welcome. ;-)
-Eric Clayberg
Sr. Vice President of Product Development
Instantiations, Inc.
mailto:clayberg@instantiations.com
http://www.instantiations.com/vast
| |
| Hans-Martin Mosner 2005-11-19, 7:57 am |
| "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> wrote:
....
> Squeak is odd in this way. The Squeak world resolutely refuses to switch to
> the syntax that /everybody/ else has been using for ages. (But see below)
This isn't exactly correct. The Squeak world has been supporting := for
assignment for a couple of years now, and there are motions to
completely switch to :=.
>
> The '!' thing in GSt is different. ...
>
> With those two caveats (and ignoring some non-standard extensions) Smalltalk
> syntax is common across all implementations. The differences primarily lie in
> the class libraries (most noticeably in the GUI features).
Well there are some minor syntax extensions to the original Smalltalk-80 syntax:
VW introduced #[] syntax for literal ByteArrays, and a syntax for
variables in namespaces and for referencing variable bindings..
VAST introduced ##atom syntax for unique strings which are not Symbols,
a syntax (different from VW's) for variables in namespaces and some
syntax for "literal" expressions (expressions evaluated at compile time).
Squeak introduced {} syntax for collections built from expressions (it
was used for multiple variable assignment as well, but that's deprecated now).
Cheers,
Hans-Martin
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-21, 7:02 pm |
| Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Howdy. I'm brand new to Smalltalk (still learning the language). Which
> implementation should I use to get started?
Thanks for all who responded to this. I've saving several of these
posts, especially the commentary on differences between implementations,
for future reference.
It looks like:
- If I'm going to use a commercial Smalltalk, it will be
VisualAge. Its clear from the evaluation version I
downloaded: the development team undersands that commercial
software is only as good as its documentation.
- If I want a traditional, open-source implementation, Squeak is
probably the best option, despite quirks and uneven quality.
- I'm not yet in a position to judge the smaller
implementations. I plan to use GNU Smalltalk for learning
purposes, and because much of my current development is
targeted at headless servers. Once I have a better
understanding of the language, available libraries, and
different VMs, I hope to be able to be better qualified to
evaluate Little Smalltalk et al.
-Jeff Schwab
jeff@schwabcenter.com
| |
| Paolo Bonzini 2005-11-21, 7:02 pm |
| > I plan to use GNU Smalltalk for learning
> purposes, and because much of my current development is
> targeted at headless servers.
If so, you can download the brand new 2.2 version (out today :-) and
subscribe to the help-smalltalk@gnu.org mailing list
(http://lists.gnu.org).
Paolo
| |
| David Given 2005-11-21, 7:02 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article <WGlgf.2836$xD5.1520160@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Jeffrey Schwab <jeff@schwabcenter.com> writes:
[...]
> - If I want a traditional, open-source implementation, Squeak is
> probably the best option, despite quirks and uneven quality.
Just for reference, the Squeak licence has some problems which may cause
you problems if you distribute something based on Squeak. This is
preventing, for example, Squeak's inclusion in Debian. See the following
discussion:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega...4/msg00159.html
- --
+- David Given --McQ-+ "SCSI is *not* magic. There are *fundamental
| dg@cowlark.com | technical reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice
| (dg@tao-group.com) | a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then." ---
+- www.cowlark.com --+ John Woods
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDgg4Sf9E0noFvlzgRAm89AKDD0Tg1js9s
8RdAsAISSvqfnwnAkgCgt0gr
hTdpReuh8e4Vy2MXeUzwWNo=
=DrIV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thomas F. Burdick 2005-11-21, 7:02 pm |
| dg@pearl.tao.co.uk (David Given) writes:
> In article <WGlgf.2836$xD5.1520160@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
> Jeffrey Schwab <jeff@schwabcenter.com> writes:
> [...]
>
> Just for reference, the Squeak licence has some problems which may cause
> you problems if you distribute something based on Squeak.
What?!?! I suppose you did say "may", but still ... the issues are
ones of Free Software purity, not anything that 99.99% of users are
likely to need to care about.
> This is
> preventing, for example, Squeak's inclusion in Debian. See the following
> discussion:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-lega...4/msg00159.html
To the OP, if you're worried, do read the cited message, it ought to
assuage your fears.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
| |
| jarober@gmail.com 2005-11-21, 7:02 pm |
| Have you looked at Cincom Smalltalk? We have very extensive
documentation, the largest team of Smalltalk developers of any of the
commercial vendors - and our product is moving forward much more
rapidly than the alternative enterprise solutions in the Smalltalk
space.
http://smalltalk.cincom.com
Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
> Jeffrey Schwab wrote:
>
> Thanks for all who responded to this. I've saving several of these
> posts, especially the commentary on differences between implementations,
> for future reference.
>
> It looks like:
>
> - If I'm going to use a commercial Smalltalk, it will be
> VisualAge. Its clear from the evaluation version I
> downloaded: the development team undersands that commercial
> software is only as good as its documentation.
>
> - If I want a traditional, open-source implementation, Squeak is
> probably the best option, despite quirks and uneven quality.
>
> - I'm not yet in a position to judge the smaller
> implementations. I plan to use GNU Smalltalk for learning
> purposes, and because much of my current development is
> targeted at headless servers. Once I have a better
> understanding of the language, available libraries, and
> different VMs, I hope to be able to be better qualified to
> evaluate Little Smalltalk et al.
>
> -Jeff Schwab
> jeff@schwabcenter.com
| |
| Jeffrey Schwab 2005-11-21, 9:57 pm |
| jarober@gmail.com wrote:
> Have you looked at Cincom Smalltalk? We have very extensive
> documentation, the largest team of Smalltalk developers of any of the
> commercial vendors - and our product is moving forward much more
> rapidly than the alternative enterprise solutions in the Smalltalk
> space.
>
> http://smalltalk.cincom.com
Thanks, I'll take another look.
I was originally turned off by the difficulty of getting licensing
information. The "licensing and pricing links" on the web site want me
to submit personal information just to get a sticker price. No thank you.
This link was posted by James Savidge:
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/Cinc...AR+Pricing+work
The link explains a pricing scheme in which Cincom would be entitled to
about 6% of my company's Cincom Smalltalk based revenue. That seems
like a pretty heft chunk of margin.
A lot of the software at my company is written for internal use, but
later gets sold externally. A 6% hit to revenue could be enough to kill
the idea of external sales entirely.
| |
| Marten Feldtmann 2005-11-23, 7:01 pm |
| Jeffrey Schwab schrieb:
>
> A lot of the software at my company is written for internal use, but
> later gets sold externally. A 6% hit to revenue could be enough to kill
> the idea of external sales entirely.
I was in the same situation ... the 6% are not applicable to inhouse
development. Only to product development ! But that depends heavily
on the sales man you can contact ...
Marten
| |
| AjArora 2005-11-29, 7:58 am |
| Go for VisualWorks Smalltalk.....
|
|
|
|
|