Smalltalk ayuda a visualizar contenido no interactivo para mostrar video y tutoriales de cualquier tema.

In the seventies, four versions were developed: Smalltalk-71, Smalltalk-72, Smalltalk-76 and Smalltalk-80.

The code examples in the online version can be directly copied and pasted into Cuis-Smalltalk. This is why the assignment character “←” you see in the developer Cuis-Smalltalk window is printed as “:=” in the online version of the book. The same applies with the return character “↑” printed as “^” in the online version.

En Smalltalk, todo es un objeto, incluso los booleanos.

PREGUNTA ¿Que es la reificación?

Smalltalk tiene solo seis palabras clave reservadas, cada una de las cuales representa un valor de objeto particular.

An OS as an interactive image that runs independent services that communicate via message-passing.

We already did, it was called Lisp Machines and Smalltalk, and we are yet to fully replicate them.

Prototype based和Class based的系统哪个更OOP？

Smalltalk image is unlike a collection of Java class files in that it can store your programs (both source and compiled bytecode), their data, and execution state. You can quit and save your work while some code is executing, move your image to an entirely different machine, load your image… and your program picks up where it left off.

Smalltalk has a virtual machine which allows you to execute your code on any platform where the VM can run. The image however is not only all your code, but the entire Smalltalk system, including said virtual machine (because of course it’s written in itself).

when you're reading some fresh code in your browser, do you really want to stop to configure that test harness

Bonus points if it can walk the user through the upstream contribution process

Some languages like Smalltalk and Ruby only allow access via object methods

Smalltalk was a revolutionary system developed by the Learning Research Group (LRG) at Xerox PARC in the 1970s, led by Alan Kay. Smalltalk was comprised of a programming language, a development environment, and a graphical user interface (GUI), running on PARC’s groundbreaking Alto computer. In fact, it is most famous for being the GUI that inspired Steve Jobs when he and a group of Apple engineers visited PARC in 1979. Smalltalk pioneered overlapping windows, popup menus, and paned browsers, all controlled by a mouse. All of these UI elements have come down to us today through systems like the Macintosh and Microsoft Windows. Smalltalk was also one of the earliest, and most influential, object-oriented programming languages, which make up the most dominant type of programming languages today. Object-oriented languages are designed to make it easy to reuse existing pieces of code, but in a flexible way. Python, Java, Ruby, and Objective-C, among others, all owe debts to ideas originally developed in Smalltalk.

The Smalltalk Zoo is a collection of historical versions of the revolutionary graphical programming and user environment Smalltalk, originally developed at Xerox PARC, ranging from the 1972 version all the way to the modern “Squeak” version whose development began in 1995. These emulated Smalltalk environments run in your web browser and are hosted by CHM at smalltalkzoo.thechm.org.

Otherwise, you should have at least 256 K bytes of memory. This much memory is re­quired because the whole integrated environment lives in one address space.

The Lisp Machine (which could just as easily have been, say, a Smalltalk machine) was a computing environment with a coherent, logical design, where the “turtles go all the way down.” An environment which enabled stopping, examining the state of, editing, and resuming a running program, including the kernel. An environment which could actually be fully understood by an experienced developer.  One where nearly all source code was not only available but usefully so, at all times, in real time.  An environment to which we owe so many of the innovations we take for granted. It is easy for us now to say that such power could not have existed, or is unnecessary. Yet our favorite digital toys (and who knows what other artifacts of civilization) only exist because it was once possible to buy a computer designed specifically for exploring complex ideas.  Certainly no such beast exists today – but that is not what saddens me most.  Rather, it is the fact that so few are aware that anything has been lost.

One could argue that perhaps what we see in this history is not the creation ofobjects as an ontological element but rather the development of a language to such alevel of complexity that it is finally able to describe objects that already exist in theworld outside of language. Against this objection, it must be noted that what we witnessin this history, what drives it forward, is the difficulty of relating language to world,whether it is a simulated world or a new world of computer graphics. Moreover, theexamples presented here and in the textbooks and manuals for object-oriented pro-gramming demonstrate the often-difficult art of defining the objects that will constitutea given system

None of these objects, e.g., bits, functions, classes, and even the object thatSmalltalk invented, exist as objects outside of language. This is not to say that they areonly linguistic or that they do not really exist. The digital real exists and exerts itselfwithin its ossification into object form, but in the real, there are no objects, merely avast field of electric difference. Likewise, it is not to say that everything is language orthat everything is material. A discourse that does not affect the electronic system withinthe machine can never flip a bit. Conversely, for electric difference to mean anything, itmust be delimited as an object, process, or other data type within language. Program-ming is a process and system of representing and simultaneously hiding the real inlanguage.

er. Kay ultimately attempted toclose his own ontological circle and find object-computers recursively defining eachother and infinitively deferring any concrete representation. It is striking how much thisvision anticipated the current world of networked computers with large cloud-basedtasks spread across multiple individual machin

Smalltalk also advanced this metaphor of computation as objects along anotherrelated track that turned computation into a self-referential system of interactingcomputers. Kay (1996) describes this understanding of objects in relation to computers.Smalltalk is a recursion on the notion of computer itself. Instead of dividingBcomputer stuff^into things each less strong than the whole—like data structures,procedures, and functions which are the usual paraphernalia of programminglanguages—each Smalltalk object is a recursion on the entire possibilities of thecomputer. Thus its semantics are a bit like having thousands and thousands ofcomputer all hooked together by a very fast network. Questions of concreterepresentation can thus be postponed almost indefinit

Thus, the digital object ossifies out of two histories, one virtual and another visual.Within computation, the object arises out of a desire to create a model of the worldwithin the computer but at the same time out of an attempt to create a whole new visualworld native to the compute

todo esto se lleva a cabo a través del lenguaje: “para decirlo de una forma más radical, nos diseñamos a nosotros mismos (y a las redes sociales y tecnológicas en las que tienen significado nuestras vidas) en el lenguaje” (Winograd y Flores 1986: 78); o, para volver a Maturana, el ‘lenguajear’ es la forma fundamental de la existencia de los seres humanos. No sólo eso; el lenguaje está íntimamente conectado con el flujo de emociones ya que el ‘lenguajear’ y el ‘emocionar’ proporcionan la base para la coordinación recursiva del comportamiento a través de la creación de ámbitos consensuales. Maturana llama conversación “al trenzado consensual del lenguaje y las emociones” (

Los conceptos de biomimética y cuna-a-cuna están ganando cada vez más atención en el diseño de productos. En América Latina la agroecología se ha convertido en un espacio de encuentro de la agricultura campesina y el diseño ecológico, a menudo en conjunto con movimientos sociales, como Vía Campesina.

Smalltalk doesn’t have to be pragmatic, because it’s better than its imitators and the things that make it different are also the things that give it an advantage.

TR: How do you account for the fact that C++ is both widely criticized and resented by many programmers but at the same time very broadly used? Why is it so successful?BS: The glib answer is, There are just two kinds of languages: the ones everybody complains about and the ones nobody uses.There are more useful systems developed in languages deemed awful than in languages praised for being beautiful–many more. The purpose of a programming language is to help build good systems, where “good” can be defined in many ways. My brief definition is, correct, maintainable, and adequately fast. Aesthetics matter, but first and foremost a language must be useful; it must allow real-world programmers to express real-world ideas succinctly and affordably.

This is aimed at people in the tech industry, and is more about what you can do with your career than at a hackathon. I’m not going to discuss policy and regulation, although they’re no less important than technological innovation. A good way to think about it, via Saul Griffith, is that it’s the role of technologists to create options for policy-makers.