[Pharo-project] Popularity of Smalltalk in Software Industry

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Sat May 7 13:37:35 CEST 2011

On 7 May 2011 07:25, Michael Haupt <mhaupt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Igor,
> Am 07.05.2011 um 02:06 schrieb Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
> Heh.. then we're 99% done. Except that this last 1% is still could
> take years to complete :)
> you serious? Making a Smalltalk image thread-safe is that hard?
> I can tell you more: there is no business cases for VM(s) which can do
> manycore :)
> At least, to my perception, there is not much pressure from people
> (even on mainstream languages) to leverage this technology.
> What market are you talking about? There are lots and lots of customers of
> certain big database/appliance vendors that would loudly protest had the
> stuff they bought no inherent support for parallel execution.

So, where those customers to sponsor development of VM(s) they need so much?

> I thought it is very close to come into our houses, but no.. it stuck
> somewhere on marketplace, buying a better clothes.
> And now it's arrived in tablets already. It's your problem if you leave your
> iPad lying around *outside* your house. ;-)

I am not talking about hardware, i'm talking about software. It is
largely not using parallelism,
or using it wrong.

> Implementing VM which enabling massive parallelism is just a
> beginning. Then obviously you need do to a lot at language side
> to leverage that, in order to really say "yes, our system(s) are aware
> of multicore and can scale almost linearly in future".
> And do not forget the most important thing: people must be educated to
> program for parallelism. The computing power is there to be exploited, but
> programmers need to know how to exploit it. You can't rely on the compiler
> or VM alone.

That's the main problem, IMO. Most smalltalkers i met (oh.. why.. not
just smalltalkers),
fear parallelism like fire. Refer to it as something too complex they
can't understand.
And i think that's why "Parallelism to masses" approach is largely
failing , not just in smalltalk,
but in whole software industry.

> Now, given that squeak's code a hugely non-thread-safe, imagine how
> many iterations in redesign it would take to make it thread-safe
> first, and then make it run in parallel with rest of the stuff.
> Is it really *that* hard or is this just FUD?

Its not that hard. But if you take the previous paragraph into account...

> Best,
> Michael

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

More information about the Pharo-project mailing list