pharo VS pbrt-v3

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/

Physically Based Rendering[0] was an excellent textbook when I read it ages ago and conveniently enough it looks to have been updated with a new edition last year.

[0]: https://pbrt.org/

Physically Based Raytracing

Both of these books are free, and both are written in C++, but they can be done in any language. The first book, a raytracer in a weekend, is part of a series, you can find it here: https://raytracing.github.io/ And, if you get to the third book in that series, or you need a reference book, the PBRT book covers the math in more depth and discusses the latest theory, you can get the last edition of the book (5 years out of date) for free though: https://pbrt.org/

Making a “complete” one is a never-ending rabbit hole you can spend a lifetime on and is a very active area of research covering more advanced geometry, probability, optics, machine learning etc etc. A great introduction to that is https://pbrt.org

This isn't the highest priority but if you haven't already, learn how computer graphics works. Get a working knowledge of the camera matrix, real time graphics (say, OpenGL but threeJS is an option), and photorealistic graphics. PBRT is the go-to for photorealistic graphics. The first two books of Foundations of Game Engine Development are way more useful than they have any right to be (and my favorite textbooks I've ever read, 10/10).

Org-mode strength though is in working with different languages in a same source file, which I am not sure if Knuths version does. Anyway, to see how the original idea looks like, check the Wikipedia article, or to see it in real-life see some of books that are written in the literate style, like Physically Based Rendering, which seems to be available for free nowadays or C Interfaces and Implementations.

I contributed a tiny bit to pbrt[1], and one of the things I loved was that if you just plugged in physical values you almost always got great results with minimal tweaking.

The Octane data seems most complete at first glance (with complex IOR etc), but for things like milk and blood I expected at the very least some absorption coefficient for the translucency or similar.

[1]: https://pbrt.org/