
The Strongtalk Type System for Smalltalk (2004) - mpweiher
http://www.bracha.org/nwst.html
======
peatmoss
I think I remember reading at one point that a bunch of the original
Strongtalk tech was recycled by Sun Microsystems for the first JVM. A quick
DuckDuckGo-ing yields some plausible confirmatory links such as
[https://github.com/jirkadanek/Strongtalk](https://github.com/jirkadanek/Strongtalk)

~~~
niftich
It wasn't for the first JVM; it was for HotSpot, the JIT engine that replaced
[1] Sun's previous JVM in 1999.

HotSpot was developed by the same team that worked on Strongtalk [2],
including the linked submission's author Bracha, who were later acqui-hired by
Sun [2]. See also my previous comments that summarize this and recount the
achievements of the rest of the Strongtalk team, who all went on to be
significant contributors to various domains [3][4].

[1] [http://www.javaworld.com/article/2076604/hotspot--a-new-
bree...](http://www.javaworld.com/article/2076604/hotspot--a-new-breed-of-
virtual-machine.html) [2]
[http://www.strongtalk.org/history.html](http://www.strongtalk.org/history.html)
[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12160439](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12160439)
[4]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12284279](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12284279)

~~~
peatmoss
Ah, that's an important distinction I had somehow forgotten that HotSpot
wasn't there from the beginning. Thank you for the summary links--interesting
history!

------
andreasgonewild
"The most important change introduced into Strongtalk is the move from
structural to declaration based subtyping. This change was made because:
Structural type descriptors do not express programmer intent, and are
difficult to read. Error messages produced by structural checking are poorly
localized and very hard to understand. This is especially true in a large
system with lots of internal cross references like Smalltalk."

Word. Yet fast-forward 30-ish years and structural typing is sold as a feature
again. I swear Golang is doing so much backwards that it's starting to look
intentional, like a Google-sponsored LOLCODE.

~~~
skybrian
If you want to apply these claims to Go interfaces, you should actually make
the case for it by showing that it's an issue in Go programs. This is just
snark.

~~~
oso2k
Don't knock snark. It's perfectly valid way to challenge and traces its
history to early computer science. It's why you fear goto. It's why I exploit
it.

~~~
enugu
Nowadays, it has become pervasive on social media, and lost value as everyone
uses it. It acts as a rhetorical device which can disguise the poor quality of
of the argument.

~~~
oso2k
I would say, if it's Millenial Style Snark (gawd I hate to brand all
millennials that way but they do tend to sound like the younger halo/gta 5/etc
playing crowd) where they say something stupid like "Tests or STFU" or
"callbacks or GTFO", yeah, that's tiresome. It's the kind of tone I saw
occasionally in early nodejs discussions. I wouldn't call that snark, however.

So I agree with your last statement. Snark to me implies a wit or cleverness
as well as defiance and challenge. This is why it worked for Dijkstra. The
brevity of the messages above are just a show of a lack of ability or desire
to communicate and clearly express an idea. The above are just unnecessarily
verbally abusive. They incite a negative response before the person even has
had a chance to process other meanings of the message.

~~~
andreasgonewild
I sure hope turning the whole thing into a personality-attack was worth it for
you. Do you ever consider the harm you do as you desperately fight to prevent
alternate views from affecting your reality? Not to mention that it's a
loosing game in the long run.

Brevity is a virtue; and Golang has very little of it.

