Skip to content
Back to the collection

The Smalltalk-76 programming system design and implementation

Daniel H. H. Ingalls

1978 · Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages - POPL '78

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
3
Months
4
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

kragen
Neutral mention · rule
The new articles aren't important. The ACM is probably never again going to publish a paper as influential as Liskov's paper I mentioned above, or Knuth's "Structured Programming With go to Statements", or "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/362929.362947, or Schorre's "META-II: A Syntax-Oriented Compiler Writing Language" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/800257.808896, or Ken Thompson's "Regular Expression Search Algorithm" https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/363347.363387, or Dan Ingalls on "The Smalltalk-76 programming system design and implementation" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512760.512762. Papers like those are the ones that…
Read the full comment
we need to protect our ability to archive and distribute. Not David Geerts's "The Transformative Power of Inspiration" from the current issue of CACM https://cacm.acm.org/careers/the-transformative-power-of-ins.... (I am not making this up.) Thompson was competing with, let's say, Mooers and Schorre; Geerts has decided instead to compete with Jesus, the Buddha, and Norman Vincent Peale, and my brief reading of the article does not offer much hope for his prospects. It seems safe to say that in 30 or 100 years' time nobody will cite Geerts's article as a turning point in the human understanding of inspiration, so if it's lost due to copyright restrictions, it probably won't matter that much. At the other extreme, scholars seeking to understand the historical origins of object-orientation or personal computers would be crippled without access to material like Ingalls's paper. I'm not speculating—I'm speaking from experience, because lacking that access, I grew up thinking C++ was object-oriented! But what do we see on the current version of the Ingalls paper that the ACM's web server just gave me? A note added in 02002 prohibiting public archival and redistribution: > Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work or personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers, or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
sargstuff
Neutral mention · rule
Review/look at anything that has an abstraction / implimentation aspect (aka protocols / specifications / design implimentations / public "source material") . Examine how things are stratified (deterministic vs. context sensitive 'deterministic group(s)' -- and what influences determinism/context sensitivity). aka iso/osi network communications model[4]. Keep in mind K.I.S.S. / occam's rasor philosophies! -------- a) pick just a single logical plane/level to look at within a design stack. aka -> database & sql; database & hard drive storage; hard drive storage layout (OS vs. drive physical layout & drive storage/reterival (scsi vs. non-scsi api) a) Any foundations of math…
Read the full comment
class. b) Simple physics problems with single logical type that be described by math eqation(s). aka no multivariate analysis. c) "LISP: A Lanaguage For Stratified Design"(1987)[0] by H. Abelson and G. Sussman. (vs. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) d) A "Git" softare repository (where should be separation between OS, main mechanics of program, libraries, "implimentation details", etc) e) Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets by P van der Linden d) Look at comparisons between types of mechanical engineering geers and associated logical groupings & how that'd correspond to electrical engineering boolean logic / pc 'units' aka add-in boards; processor types, gpu,cpu, etc aka rotational to linear motion / find that info on the hard drive disk : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ-1PQGlrmY e) picture to excel[1] : f) design / implimentation of <insert relevant programming language / kernel / system> [2][3] From Civil Engineering aspect, pouring concrete, logistical decomposition done by determinisic tasks with respect to external/intermal time effects on 'density changes'. aka getting everyting (including mixed concrete) on site before concrete goes from indeterminate/non-finite form to deterministic/final form. (where different material densities of concret make for a more complete manuver than just a move from pt a to point b logisics). aka acutely aware of gravity of situation. ---- [0] : http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/6064/AIM-986.p... [1] : picture to excel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBX2QQHlQ_I [2] : smalltalk : http://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/512760.512762 [3] : unix file system : http://www.r-5.org/files/books/computers/internals/ifs/Steve... [4] : network models : https://medium.com/@gwenilorac/understanding-network-models-...
Rochus
Neutral mention · rule
> Before the book came out, a series of articles about Smalltalk-80 were published in the August 1981 issue of Byte magazine. Smalltalk-76 was the first version that mostly (besides "one metaclass per class" and "blocks with arguments") corresponds to what we understand by Smalltalk today. It was developed by Ingalls and published already in 1978, see https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/512760.512762. This was the earliest publication about Smalltalk as far as I know.

Keep following the thread.

More in Programming languages

More from the same topics.