pharo VS mu

Smalltalk (https://pharo.org/)

Smalltalk also did this. These days my impression is the most active tendril is https://pharo.org/.

What I find especially interesting about that relative to this Python distro is that the Pharo executable runs in a host OS (e.g. whatever your daily driver is) and can maintain different image files for different Pharo system states. So not only do you have the integrated language/OS (which is very cool on its own), but you also have something that feels like Docker containers.

And it even goes beyond containers because those image files really are the state of the system at the time they're saved, which means you can ask for that file in a bug report and get guaranteed bug reproduction, which is pretty incredible.

It is the initial alpha release end-user can test. It is a complete port from Pharo to Cuis-Smalltalk. Likely bugs will be find.

I've recently started learning Pharo^1 and I think there is a lot to like about it. It hurts to say as a Lisp and Emacs fan, but using the Pharo IDE feels like using Emacs/extending Emacs with Emacs Lisp, but somehow with a more tightly integrated language and environment. Being able to easily inspect the code related to the UI widgets, modify it and make changes on the fly are unlike anything I've experienced in other languages. I think a whole OS built on top of Smalltalk would be so cool and really play into the strengths of Smalltalk. I'm also amazed that SmallTalk had a lot of these IDE like features since before the 80s^2. I know there are a lot of issues with image based languages, and I admit I haven't been using one long enough to have experienced all the Gotcha, so what does HN think of Smalltalks and it's derivatives, and what are you all doing with them?

1. https://pharo.org/

2. https://youtu.be/uknEhXyZgsg?t=2366

Cool! I program for around 7 months in Pharo now at Yesplan [0]. We're hiring a devops engineer and a software engineer. While the Pharo website [1] avoids mentioning it, it's a Smalltalk descendant.

What I like about Pharo:

1. Programming in the debugger makes things feel much quicker

2. Evaluating expressions inside your code editor makes programming feel much quicker

3. The ability to quickly browse classes and methods makes programming feel much quicker (e.g. I type Date somewhere, select it, press CMD+B and now I browse the Date class).

Don't get me wrong, Pharo has downsides, especially when it comes to using it in production (IMO). With that said, the language feels fun to use! I definitely like it now as my first language for side projects as it is more graphical, more playful, and feels quicker for iterative development (e.g. when consuming APIs). It's why I wanted to learn it in the first place, it has shown me a different philosophy on how programmers interact with a programming language and IDE.

[0] https://yesplan.be/en/vacancies

[1] https://pharo.org

Of course, Alan Kay's Smalltalk 80 is for many the quintessential lost paradise of personal computing. Some modern descendants are Squeak, Pharo and Cuis. Then there's Lisp machines, or for something more Unix-like, there's Plan 9.. so many cool systems deprived of mass adoption for no good reason.

> You know, that "assembling things live in the sky" Lisp feeling (Yegge's phrase, not mine). The only other computation environment that is right there en par in flexibility and conveyance of the same trippy feeling is, of course, Emacs.

Do you know Pharo? The experience you describe is also typical in the Smalltalk family. See https://pharo.org/

Smalltalk could be used as the "ideal" tool (balance between Code & No-Code). It starts out with a simple graphical interface for doing everything, but it also encourages you to customize everything by modifying the underlying code. Of course, the disadvantage is that it's quite niche - very few people actually use it nowadays.

In Smalltalk there is no such thing as source files. Your program is an image which can be freely modified and dumped. Look at Pharo[1] which is a modern Smalltalk environment. You start it up and create classes in the IDE, but never do you create "source files".

[1] https://pharo.org/

Depending on how minimal a distribution you want, a few years ago I had a way to take a single ELF binary created by my computing stack built up from machine code (https://github.com/akkartik/mu) and package it up with just a linux kernel and syslinux (whatever _that_ is) to create a bootable disk image I could then ship to a cloud server (https://akkartik.name/post/iso-on-linode, though I don't use Linode anymore these days) and run on a VPS to create a truly minimal webserver. If this seems at all relevant I'd be happy to answer questions or help out.

This was the thinking behind my https://github.com/akkartik/mu

Yes thank you, I was indeed alluding to https://github.com/akkartik/mu. Perhaps a more precise term would be "software stack".

I built a computer with its own languages, and I consider it to be _less_ cognitive load when everything is in 1/2/3 languages. I don't have to worry that the next program I want to read the sources will require "Go, Rust, C++, JS/TS, Python, Java, etc."

There are other metrics to consider besides your notions of cognitive load and productivity. Inferno predates most of the languages on your list. My computer (https://github.com/akkartik/mu) uses custom languages because I was able to design them to minimize total LoC, and to ensure the dependency graph has no cycles (unlike all of the conventional software stack, at least until https://www.gnu.org/software/mes connects up all the dots).

"Separation of concerns is a hard-won insight."

Absolutely. I'm arguing for separating just concerns, without entangling them with considerations of people.

It's certainly reasonable to consider my projects toy. I consider them research:

* https://github.com/akkartik/mu

* https://github.com/akkartik/teliva

"The idea that projects should take source copies instead of library dependencies is just kind of nuts..."

The idea that projects should take copies seems about symmetric to me with taking pointers. Call by value vs call by reference. We just haven't had 50 years of tooling to support copies. Where would we be by now if we had devoted equal resources to both branches?

"...at least for large libraries."

How are these large libraries going for ya? Log4j wasn't exactly a shining example of the human race at its best. We're trying to run before we can walk.

I still believe :) I'm looking not for an economic argument but for a strategic one. I think[1] a self-hosted setup with minimal dependencies can be more resilient than a conventional one, whether with a vendor or self-hosted.

https://sandstorm.io got a lot right. I wish they'd paid more attention to upgrade burdens.

[1] https://github.com/akkartik/mu

I'm very interested in the network stack, having explored it for a while for https://github.com/akkartik/mu before giving up. What sort of network card do you support?