RailsConf 09: Robert Martin, "What Killed Smalltalk Could K

What Hacker News said

Recommends AlexFromBelgium · 2012-04 · on “In which we plot an escape from the quagmire of equality (Clojure and Emacs)”

Thx for the responses. I just watched "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby, Too" [this video] pretty interesting

Recommends brudgers · 2015-07 · on “Some Functional Programmers Are Arrogant”

For some context on Martin's comments his talk on how arrogance effected Smalltalk is probably relevant: [this video] and probably worth watching if you enjoy Uncle Bob's soulful stylings and are interested in his thoughts about programming language communities.

Recommends duncanawoods · 2015-08 · on “Redline Smalltalk for the JVM”

After watching a few Alan Kay talks where he pines for Smalltalk, I happened to watch this Robert Martin talk "What killed Smalltalk could kill Ruby". [this video] The tldw reasons he gives for why Smalltalk died: - too easy to make a mess where adding complexity would be punished late. - arrogance - community isolated itself from the world and did not address common industry needs - commercial only - alternative free languages dominated

Recommends pjmlp · 2016-11 · on “Keep Ruby Weird Again [video]”

Quite interesting, maybe one should also check this older talk: Robert Martin, "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby", 2009 [this video]

Recommends bayindirh · 2022-09 · on “Go runtime: 4 years later”

We always make this discussion with friends. I don't think every language should tick the boxes the same way. I also personally like Go a lot. It's filling the gap between C++ and Python for me. If I need something compiled with proper threading support, but C++ would be an overkill, I reach for Go. Go is designed with a human centric view, IMHO: "Make writing great programs easier rather than design a language with novel/cutting edge features, but with a high cognitive load", and I find it as a noble aim as Rust's guarantees and aspirations. I understand why people love Rust, but I don't think it's the only one, or the proverbial silver bullet that we finally achieved. Yes, it's nice. Yes,

Recommends bayindirh · 2024-03 · on “Rewrite the VP9 codec library in Rust”

> your arguments against Rust come off as biased. Yes, I'm pretty aware of this, and I keep this bias voluntarily, because Rust is generally touted (hyped?) as a Silver Bullet, and I'm wary of Silver Bullets. So, I want to highlight that fact. > Sorry if I came across as rude. No hard feelings. As I said, I'm not under delusion of a perfect life. I just said it. > I just find it slightly puzzling how your stance on it is kind of going up and down. :) I have a habit of mirroring the tone of the person I'm talking with. Combine it with the fact that English is not my native language, it's possible that "tone adjustment" is far from perfect. > it's been quite a while since I've seen Rust zealot

Cites mylittlepony · 2013-01 · on “What It's Like To Be Ridiculed For Open Sourcing A Project”

Having tried Ruby for a year, I have experimented this myself. With a strong OOP background, I can assert that it's not even an elite that enjoys ridiculing noobs. It reminded me of this: [this video] Also, just look at the top comment in that video. The irony.

Cites brudgers · 2015-06 · on “Design Principles Behind Smalltalk (1981)”

I read the closing remarks: Natural Selection: Languages and systems that are of sound design will persist, to be supplanted only by better ones. and thought of Bob Martin's What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby [1]. The technical merits of Smalltalk are such that few claims "to do objects better" are taken seriously. But the lesson of Smalltalk is that "better" isn't just in the technical details. It lives in the model of community that it's speakers adopt. People speak C and JavaScript because they rode along free with Unix and the browser. Even in it's darkest days, Lisp tagged along in AutoCad and Emacs. These languages had practical purposes that let them compete outside of the "what la