pharo VS infer

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/

I think most development occurs on problems that can't be formally modeled anyway. Most developers work on things like, "can you add this feature to the e-commerce site? And can the pop-up be blue?" which isn't really model-able.

But that's not to say that formal methods are useless! We can still prove some interesting aspects of programs -- for example, that every lock that gets acquired later gets released. I think tools like Infer[0] could become common in the coming years.

[0]: https://fbinfer.com/

Using infer, someone else exploited null-dereference checks to introduce simple affine types in C++. Cppcheck also checks for null-dereferences. Unfortunately, that approach means that borrow-counting references have a larger sizeof than non-borrow counting references, so optimizing the count away potentially changes the semantics of a program which introduces a whole new way of writing subtly wrong code.

Meta/Facebook are long time OCaml users, their logo is on the OCaml website. Their static analysis tool and its predecessor are both written in OCaml.

Then this idea that the US government will tell tech companies how to write secure software. Let's get this straight, the private sector, especially big tech is miles ahead of US government in this regard. Microsoft literally invented threat modelling and modern exploit mitigations. Facebook has the best appsec processes pretty much in the whole world, including their own cutting edge code analyzer. AWS uses formal verification everywhere. Meanwhile the US government itself runs mission-critical systems that's almost literally held together by bubble gum and toothpicks. Maybe they could dial down the arrogance a tad, get their own shit together, learn how this cyber stuff is actually done and only then try lecturing everyone else.

Efforts: Dependabot, CodeQL, Coverity, facebook's Infer tool, etc

I notice there isn't fbinfer. It's pretty cool, and is used for this library.

"Move fast, break stuff" is a great approach when you aren't pushing the broken bits to production. Fuck, even Facebook, the big "move fast, break stuff" company, uses tools to detect errors in its continuous integration toolchain. https://fbinfer.com/

TBH, there's a non-zero amount of non-"ivory tower" tools you may have used that are written in functional languages. Say, Pandoc or Shellcheck are written in Haskell; Infer and Flow are written in OCaml. RabbitMQ and Whatsapp are implemented in Erlang (FB Messenger was too, originally; they switched to the C++ servers later). Twitter backend is (or was, at least) written in Scala.