10

I downloaded Squeak, the Image file, and the Sources file, but I can't figure out how to write Smalltalk code. Is there something obvious I'm missing? Is Squeak even the right IDE for serious Smalltalk development?

Thomas Owens
  • 114,398
  • 98
  • 311
  • 431
  • [These videos](http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos) are a nice simple introduction to Squeak especially [this one](http://www.vimeo.com/groups/squeak/videos/1362376). – James Fassett Oct 11 '08 at 23:17

4 Answers4

5

Squeak is a great environment for learning Smalltalk, but don't confuse that particular implementation with 'Smalltalk'. Some of the other implementations are very professional, but not surprisingly come at a financial cost.

tsimon
  • 8,362
  • 2
  • 30
  • 41
4

Squeak is an excellent IDE for serious Smalltalk development. That is not to say that it cannot be improved. The pharo guys are eleminating from the squeak image the parts you might not want for professional development.

Download (or buy) the book Squeak by Example to get started.

Stephan Eggermont
  • 15,847
  • 1
  • 38
  • 65
1

I don't think Squeak is really oriented towards "serious Smalltalk development". It's intended as a first programming environment for children. Which isn't to say that you can't do useful stuff with it, it's just not aimed as much towards large-scale development.

Check out the Wiki for getting started tips. It's been a while since I last used Squeak, but I don't remember it being particularly hard to get started.

Mark Bessey
  • 19,598
  • 4
  • 47
  • 69
  • Squeak can do anything, including serious Smalltalk development. www.dabbledb.com is a commercial application using Squeak & Seaside. Gilad Bracha and his team are also using Squeak to implement their Newspeak programming language (http://gbracha.blogspot.com/). – Sébastien RoccaSerra Oct 12 '08 at 12:07
  • 1
    I would refer anybody interested to this paper, which describes the design goals of Squeak: http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/squeak/oopsla_squeak.html Note that building large software systems, support for a native look ad feel, and easy deployment aren't on there anywhere. – Mark Bessey Oct 14 '08 at 16:54
  • 2
    And, yeah - saying it's "for children" was probably a bit of a stretch, though that's always been one of Alan Kay's design goals. The major point of squeak is extensibility and portability. While you *can* do anything with it, it's not designed as a professional tool. – Mark Bessey Oct 14 '08 at 16:57
  • While it might not be designed as a professional tool, it is much better than lets say Eclipse or Visual Studio at it. – Stephan Eggermont Nov 27 '08 at 22:30
  • 1
    "It's intended as a first programming environment for children" - it's totally sad that this is the impression many people are getting. Though I can see why. – nachik Feb 04 '09 at 15:53
  • What's the screenshot on the front page of the Squeak wiki? http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/uploads/683/squeak34-1600x1200.1.png – Mark Bessey Feb 07 '09 at 06:48
  • Squeak has always looked like it was made by the same guys who design Fisher Price toys. Yes, it's powerful. But it looks like a joke, to business developers. Looks can be deceiving. But also, they let you know that a lot of people who use and build squeak don't care if it "looks professional", because they have very non-business (is that what you mean by 'serious'?) use-scenarios. Check out the Pharo Smalltalk VM which is based on squeak, but with the bedazzler bits left out. – Warren P Apr 21 '10 at 13:29
  • 1
    Take a look at OpenQwaq, it definitely qualifies as "serious development": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenQwaq - Kay's design goal "programming environment for children" refers to the quality and intuitiveness of the user interface, not to limited capabilities. – Giulio Prisco Aug 17 '11 at 06:20
0

Squeak is nice to learn the language and to see how creative a system like it can make people, which has two aspects: you see many interesting ideas and new concepts tried, but also a lot of junk and bad looking (some even abandoned) experiments.

I admit that, for a beginner, it may be hard to see the big picture, or if there is any at all. An example is the use of multiple GUI schemes (MVC vs. Morphic): at a time, where the mainstream is junping on MVC (they just understood in Java, what the ST guys talked about 20 yrs ago, and so they went from callbacks and AW to Swing), the Squeak guys are fed with MVC and move on, trying other aproaches. There is also a lack of "professional look" in squeak. And a chaotic community, some of which are quite ego-driven individuals.

It can be argued, if Squeak alltogether is good or bad for Smalltalk's reputation, as it certainly pisses of all those who want to write "conservative" windows apps, with menubars, icons, toolbars etc. Also performance used to be a problem (but since ELiot is working on the VM, is getting better...)

On the other side, there are wonderful applications, which are almost impossible in other environments: look at croquet (having a browser on the wall, with fishes swimming around), Etoys, Scratch, nice Seaside apps etc. And also almost all things which are now considered mainstream have originated from the Smalltalk and the Squeak community. And these guys are moving on...

So please take a look at the other Smalltalk's too: there are at least GNU-ST, Visualworks and Smalltalk/X. The later two are more biased towards blassical business apps, and the language and base libraries are almost the same. VW is not free, for commercial work, though.

blabla999
  • 3,130
  • 22
  • 24