Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk 
Author Message
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk

Probably everyone else got the same thing in the mail today too, but just in case...

On p.15 of the June 2002 issue of Software Development there is a reprinted excerpt
from June 1987 that mentions Smalltalk's influence in the development of the
programming language ACTOR.  Its developer, Chuck Duff, says of Smalltalk, "It just
blew my mind."  Smalltalk is mentioned and praised multiple times.

I haven't seen that it is online yet.

Keith Alcock



Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:54:10 GMT  
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk


Quote:
> Probably everyone else got the same thing in the mail today

too, but just in case...
Quote:

> On p.15 of the June 2002 issue of Software Development there is
a reprinted excerpt
> from June 1987 that mentions Smalltalk's influence in the
development of the
> programming language ACTOR.  Its developer, Chuck Duff, says of
Smalltalk, "It just
> blew my mind."  Smalltalk is mentioned and praised multiple

times.

Actor? Now *that* was a painful period. Great language, but the
implementation lacked "robustness", shall we say.

But it did get me started in Windows programming....

Andy



Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:05:23 GMT  
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk

Quote:
> Probably everyone else got the same thing in the mail today too, but just
in case...

> On p.15 of the June 2002 issue of Software Development there is a
reprinted excerpt
> from June 1987 that mentions Smalltalk's influence in the development of
the
> programming language ACTOR.  Its developer, Chuck Duff, says of Smalltalk,
"It just
> blew my mind."  Smalltalk is mentioned and praised multiple times.

Some of us are still using ACTOR, or at least transitioning out of it. ;)
The biggest problem with it is the object pointer limitation (either 64,000
or 32,000).

Interested parties can have a look at the ACTOR-L mailing list archives for
the latest "cutting edge" information on it.
http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/actor-l.html

ACTOR may be reincarnated as ReActor
http://home.bip.net/mikael_aronsson/index_ac.html .

Chris



Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:28:05 GMT  
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk
...and if you read further, the article 'Connecting the Dots' starting on p.42 mentions
Smalltalk at first as a possible implementation language for the game of dots (one that the
author's 11-year-old son might understand) and then later as the implementation language of
one version of the MVP (model-view-presenter) framework.  Here Dolphin Smalltalk is
named in particular.
Quote:

> Probably everyone else got the same thing in the mail today too, but just in case...

> On p.15 of the June 2002 issue of Software Development there is a reprinted excerpt
> from June 1987 that mentions Smalltalk's influence in the development of the
> programming language ACTOR.  Its developer, Chuck Duff, says of Smalltalk, "It just
> blew my mind."  Smalltalk is mentioned and praised multiple times.

> I haven't seen that it is online yet.

> Keith Alcock



Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:42:11 GMT  
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk

Quote:

> ACTOR may be reincarnated as ReActor
> http://home.bip.net/mikael_aronsson/index_ac.html .

What I didn't ever get was why creator another Smalltalk-look-alike
instead your own implementation of Smalltalk ?  I'm sure they
must have had their reasons, perhaps one of which was just
the joy of creating a new language.

Think about Java. Why add all these Smalltalk-like features
to a language (objects, GC etc. ) when you could have simply
adopted smalltalk to your specific need.

-Panu Viljamaa



Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:12:02 GMT  
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk
Hi Panu:

While I agree with your sentiments *entirely*, IIRC, Actor was an
attempt to produce Smalltalk using 'C' syntax (clearly, an
abomination!). I have a set of disks and manuals in the ba{*filter*}t,
perhaps I should check. ;-)

Cheers!!  

Quote:


>> ACTOR may be reincarnated as ReActor
>> http://www.*-*-*.com/

> What I didn't ever get was why creator another Smalltalk-look-alike
> instead your own implementation of Smalltalk ?  I'm sure they
> must have had their reasons, perhaps one of which was just
> the joy of creating a new language.

> Think about Java. Why add all these Smalltalk-like features
> to a language (objects, GC etc. ) when you could have simply
> adopted smalltalk to your specific need.

> -Panu Viljamaa

--
Thanks!!
Joseph Bacanskas [|]
--- I use Smalltalk.  My amp goes to eleven.


Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:25:56 GMT  
 Software Development article mentioning Smalltalk

Quote:

> > ACTOR may be reincarnated as ReActor
> > http://home.bip.net/mikael_aronsson/index_ac.html .

> What I didn't ever get was why creator another Smalltalk-look-alike
> instead your own implementation of Smalltalk ?  I'm sure they
> must have had their reasons, perhaps one of which was just
> the joy of creating a new language.

As Joseph mentions syntax was probably the biggest reason for Actor.  There
are some people who just don't like the syntax of Smalltalk.  Actor is a
combo of C and Pascal syntax.  Actor was good for people that liked the
power of Smalltalk, but could not accept the syntax.  Essentially it is
method(receiver, arg1, arg2).  However it breaks that syntax rule for binary
messages which look like Smalltalk expressions, except that Actor follows
mathematical order of operations.  Bellow you can see an example of Actor
syntax.

Actor also _may_ have had some GUI advantages for the MS Windows platform in
the early days.  When my company chose Actor,  years ago (around 1991), I
think it was a choice between Digitalk Smalltalk/DOS or 286, or whatever
they called it and Actor.  This was before my time at the company.  Perhaps
someone else can elaborate on this better.

An interesting note about the code bellow is that the stream code is
actually a little slower than the string concatenation code in Actor.
================================
/*Actor Streams */
time({stream := on(Stream, "");
  do(5000,
  {using(count)
    nextPutAll(stream, "X");
  });})
================================
/*Actor String concatenation */
time({string := "";
  do(5000,
  {using(count)
    string := string + "X";
  });})
================================

Chris



Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:07:44 GMT  
 
 [ 7 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Bjarne Stroustrup mentions Smalltalk (was java book author mentions Smalltalk)

2. Ruby and AspectR mentioned in Software Development Magazine

3. Multiple mentions of Smalltalk in SW Development magazine

4. article on Software Development

5. Article on Ruby in Software Development magazine

6. Software Development Lisp Article

7. wxPython Article (in German) in new development magazin: sw-development

8. Article Mentioning Forth

9. Crosstalk Article mentions Eiffel

10. Ruby mention in article

11. Great Article on Scripting Languages (Ruby mentioned!)

12. PC week article, Ada and Java mentioned.

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software