Skip to main content

Smalltalk Challenge: Post 8 - Virtual Images

Virtualization is in vogue right now as companies use such technology to run multiple systems on consolidated hardware. Remember, Smalltalk was designed as a language and an environment. No one is about to replace Windows (or Ubuntu, though I'm tempted) with Smalltalk as their operating system, so it makes sense for it to be implemented as a virtual machine.

Similar to products like VMWare Workstation or VirtualBox, most Smalltalk implementations consist of a Virtual machine (VM) application and an image file. The image file contains the definition and state of the Smalltalk environment which is realized by the VM. It may be helpful to think about the image file as a program saved somewhere on your computer's hard drive, and the VM is your computer's processor that executes the code to do something useful.

A Squeak installation consists of four files: a VM executable and three files that make up the image.
  • The VM is the interpretor that "runs" a Smalltalk image.
  • The .sources file contains the core Squeak system and base libraries.
  • The .image file contains the current state of the running system.
  • The .changes file is contains a log of changes made to the system.
You can save the state of the environment at any time while working in Squeak, which is stored between the .image and .changes files. Such snapshots can be loaded later to go back to previous sessions, or shared with others as a means of distribution.

As with most things in life there are advantages and disadvantages with image-based imperative programming. Apparently though the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The latest standardization attempt of Smalltalk, ANSI/INCITS 319 1998 (ANSI Smalltalk), does away with the old model and specifies a fully declarative model for writing Smalltalk programs. Some reasons for adopting the new model were:
  • Programs could be inaccessible if the image becomes out dated or corrupted.
  • Because the same image is used for development and production, is makes it very difficult to support situations where the development and target execution environments must be different (security restrictions, for example).

I did a quick screen recording to show what writing code in the environment is like. In Squeak, the programmer writes the code for a class and its methods directly in the System Browser window. At the top of the window are selection lists; from left to right, they list class categories, classes, method categories, and methods. Below them is a text area where the code is typed and saved. When the code is saved, Squeak automatically compiles it and makes it available to the rest of the system.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing a Minimal PSR-0 Autoloader

An excellent overview of autoloading in PHP and the PSR-0 standard was written by Hari K T over at PHPMaster.com , and it's definitely worth the read. But maybe you don't like some of the bloated, heavier autoloader offerings provided by various PHP frameworks, or maybe you just like to roll your own solutions. Is it possible to roll your own minimal loader and still be compliant? First, let's look at what PSR-0 mandates, taken directly from the standards document on GitHub : A fully-qualified namespace and class must have the following structure \<Vendor Name>\(<Namespace>\)*<Class Name> Each namespace must have a top-level namespace ("Vendor Name"). Each namespace can have as many sub-namespaces as it wishes. Each namespace separator is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR when loading from the file system. Each "_" character in the CLASS NAME is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . The "_" character has no special ...
6 comments
Read more

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...
9 comments
Read more

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N...
22 comments
Read more