What Would You Miss If You Had To Stop Using Ruby and Go Back to Smalltalk?
Posted by Rick DeNatale Wed, 21 May 2008 20:58:00 GMT
Last night, James Robertson from Cincom, presented Smalltalk and Seaside to the Raleigh Ruby Brigade.
It was an interesting deja-vu experience, since in my younger days, part of my job with IBM was evangelizing Smalltalk, much as James does today. It was interesting to see what has and hasn’t changed. For the most part the things about Smalltalk which were blessings and curses (or many times both) haven’t changed. The IDE is still powerful. It gets much of it’s power from Smalltalk’s model of how source code and run-time implementation objects like compiled-methods, classes and metaclasses interact, but the consequence is that there aren’t really Smalltalk source files to use with popular editors like VIM or EMACS or Textmate. The question came up about whether the Smalltalk IDE supported the notion of giving the code to an external editor, and the answer was that the size of a typical Smalltalk method, which is the unit of editing, was so small (10 lines is a long Smalltalk method) as to make it ‘moot.’ I used to get the same kind of questions and give pretty much the same answers.
One area where Smalltalk really does excel is in it’s debugging and inspection tools. The same implementation object model which enables browser features, like finding all senders or implementers of a message using structural rather than textual searching, also allows live debugging, where you can not only inspect the run-time state at a breakpoint, or when an exception occurs, but actually make changes to the running code, and compile those changes, at which point the VM prunes the invocation stack down to the point of the change and allows you to restart from that point. Protestations from TDD/BDD adherents that you don’t need no steenking debugger if you follow TDD practice, the Smalltalk debugger was tool much favored by the very people, like Kent Beck, who invented TDD. Many Rubyists who were around for more than a year or two had an anti-debugger attitude, generated more, I suspect, by the lack of a decent Ruby debugger than any real hatred of debuggers.
Now that ruby-debug has been around for almost two years, the situation is much better. Ruby has a fairly competent debugger which allows stepping through code. It’s still hampered by Ruby’s rather simple run-time meta information, being forced to work on a line-by-line mode, rather than being able to step through individual expressions as can the Smalltalk debugger. And we’re still a long way from the live surgery capabilities I described. Perhaps as Ruby VM implementations mature we might see some of these advanced features emerge, perhaps this is something which the Rubinius implementers might also take as an inspiration from Smalltalk. This is one of the main things I miss from my Smalltalk days.
On the other hand, at this point in time, I’m really much happier working in Ruby than I think I would be were I somehow forced to work in Smalltalk again instead. Much as I love it, Smalltalk is now my second favorite language.
At one point last night, Brian Adkins asked me the question which is the title of this article. I think it’s a fair question, and I’m not sure I know exactly, but let me try to answer it.
What I’d miss from Ruby
I’ve said this before, but one of the things I like about Ruby is that it is more dynamic than Smalltalk in ways which I like, and cuts back on other aspects of Smalltalk which I don’t think are really that important.
One of the things I like about Ruby is the elimination of variable declarations. A good example of this was that during the Seaside demo last night, James showed how interfacing to the database requires attribute instance variables in model objects to be declared. Now the IDE provides tools for helping with this, you get prompted with a list of column names and can add them one by one just by clicking buttons. Contrast this with ActiveRecord where model objects just acquire instance variables dynamically at run-time. Now I know that some prefer more explicit mappings, but personally I feel that the dynamic mapping provides much more capability for much less ceremony.
The ways in which Ruby is more dynamic than Smalltalk seem to me to provide better facilities for building low-ceremony architectures and artifacts like Rails, Rake, etc. There are more dynamic languages than Ruby to be sure, such as Self, and from what I can sense JavaScript, but Ruby seems to strike a very nice balance.
Much has been made of the legacy of Smalltalk in pioneering metaprogramming, although some Lisp guys might quibble with that, and in truth, most Smalltalk metaprogramming was only used to support the IDE and never put to use by application programmers. Alan Kay used to say that he was disappointed that no one seemed to make new classes of Behavior (which is the superclass of both Class and Metaclass in Smalltalk). I know he said this to some of us at an IBM internal conference, which at least led to Dave Smith and Jerry Archbald developing a “behavior of behavior” tutorial which ran for several years at OOPSLA. But Rubyists have taken metaprogramming much further than I recall from my Smalltalk days.
On the other end of the scale, Smalltalk as James pointed out, as I used to, has a very simple syntax, a few reserved words (self, super, nil, true, and false), three types of messages (unary, binary, and keyword), two operators (:= for assignment, and ^ for return), and a few more things for defining block literals.
Now when I was doing James’ job, this got mixed reactions. Some people took to syntax like:
topLeft = Point x: 3+2*5 y: 15While others found it just a little too strange, something which we Smalltalkers just couldn’t get.
Another thing which put off newcomers to Smalltalk was that, because of the simplicity of the language, and the lack of any form of operator precedence (remember the only operators are := and ^), that subexpression 3+2*5 evaluates to 25 and not 13.
Ruby trades off a little simplicity and does provide precedence between messages which seem like they should act as operators.
I’m not saying that Ruby is without quirks, just that different people react to different quirks in different ways. If you don’t like what you perceive to be the quirks of any programming language, you won’t be convinced, even by the most ardent supporter of those quirks.
One of the interesting effects of the Smalltalk syntax was that, as we observed back in Smalltalk’s heyday in the Enterprise (late ‘80s-early ‘90s), it seemed that a lot of COBOL programmers seemed to take to Smalltalk. We used to think that Smalltalk might actually become the 21st century COBOL, until the “Enterprise” got wooed away by EJBs and the like. The same things which made Smalltalk approachable by COBOL programmers made it seem weird to those who looked down on those COBOL programmers as “trade-school” programmers.
Another much-touted feature of Smalltalk, is that everything is done by message sending, even control flow. In Smalltalk a if/then/else control flow is achieved by sending an ifTrue:ifFalse: message to a boolean object as in:
^(x = 0) ifTrue:[a] ifFalse:[b]Smalltalk evaluates this as if the the expression (x = 0) is evaluated by sending the message with the selector = and argument 0, to the object referenced by x. The result of that message, an object of course, is then sent the message with the selector ifTrue:ifFalse: and the arguments [a] and [b], which are two blocks. What happens is up to that object. Typically that object is either true (the sole instance of the class True) whose ifTrue:ifFalse: method evaluates the first argument, or false (the sole instance of the class False) whose ifTrue:ifFalse: method evaluates the second argument. Very neat and conceptually clean. It allows you to define your own control flow methods.
Ruby on the other hand compiles if statements and their kind as tests and branches, much as a C compiler would. We trade off a little flexibility for performance.
But, in my experience, that flexibility rarely got used in Smalltalk. Not only that but, in my day at least, the Smalltalk compilers would also compile ifTrue:ifFalse: to a test of the result of the ‘receiver’ and a branch. In fact I just tried defining a FakeBoolean class with an ifTrue: method and when I try to use it I see this:
That NonBooleanReceiver exception is like seeing the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, this notion of no control flow, just messages is actually a bit of an illusion.
Again, while Ruby doesn’t even pretend to implement all control flow by messaging, it provides most of what the underlying Smalltalk mechanisms are really used for in the form of blocks used to implement iterators.
There are other aspects of Smalltalk which are both blessings and curses. The fact that Smalltalk has a persistent run-time image, containing all the development tools, which can be saved along with its state of execution, and restarted is quite powerful, alien to many programmers, and can drastically change your approach to deployment. Back when I was doing Smalltalk we always struggled with issues like the footprint of the image, how to strip out the development tools before deployment, and start-up time. Some of these problems might seem to be less severe with today’s hardware, but they are still issues.
I feel that I might be coming across a little too harshly on my old friend Smalltalk. It still provides a great programming environment, and serves as a source of inspiration which shouldn’t be overlooked, and I hope to see some of the powerful development tool features from Smalltalk appear with help from support in some of the emerging Ruby implementations. I’m glad to see that it seems to be making somewhat of a resurgence, along with dynamic languages in general. But for me right now, while I wouldn’t be unhappy if I had to go back to Smalltalk, but I feel happier with Ruby.
One of the classics in the Smalltalk literature, which has also had a big influence on the Ruby community is Kent Beck’s 
, which captures the best practices for designing and coding Smalltalk programs. Back when it was published, I used to see Kent a few times a year, and happened to be in the Bay area when he made an author appearance at the Computer Literacy Bookstore in San Jose, where I got my copy, and the autograph shown here.
and looked at his section on the observer pattern. I’d just posted to ruby-talk about this pattern, how it was implemented in Smalltalk, and a more Rubyish implementation. I’ll get to that at the end of this article, but first I really feel the urge to talk about instance variables.
I've written before in this blog about how the meaning of the term "object-oriented programming" got hijacked from it's original meaning. For example I go into this in some length 
I finally got to meet Matz in person today, and we had a nice little chat.
I’m catching up on my 
Now old Merlin might look more like a Swami than the wizard of Camelot, but here’s the proof
from the front of the shirt:
The first Ruby Hoedown, sponsored by the Raleigh Ruby brigade, has finally come and gone. I had a great two days, saw some old friends, and made lots of new ones.
