After researching the backgrounds of Python's unittest module I got curious about Smalltalk, one of the first truly object-oriented programming languages. I looked into it (more specific, I played around with Pharo) and if you like, this blog post will take you along this journey using a Rosetta Stone approach by writing Python and Smalltalk snippets next to each other.
Smalltalk was first released in 1972 and I was surprised when I realized how advanced and radical its take on object-orientation is. It seems more advanced than a lot of today's languages in a lot of aspects.
I'll just start by introducing you to Smalltalk's syntax by comparison with the most common syntax elements:
class MyClass(object): def a_methodcall(x): a = list(range(10, 1, -1)) a.sort() return a
And now the implementation of the method in Smalltalk (for the class definition see )
MyClass>>aMethodCall |a| a := (10 to: 1 by: -1) asArray ^ a sort
First of all, the code is not that different. We create a list of values from 10, 9, ... to 1 in Python which we convert to a list object. In Smalltalk, we do the same, however, we do not invoke a function like range, but we call the to:by: method of the integer class (think of this as if we called 10.to_by(to=1, by=-1) in Python). Calling a method asArray then converts an intermediate representation of the range into an array. Finally, we sort the list calling the sort method of the Array object in Smalltalk, just as we sort the list in Python calling the same method. The Smalltalk representation then returns the result of the sort using its return operator ^, as does the Python version using return.
So far we have seen that Python and Smalltalk are kind of similar, although Smalltalk has a funny way of naming and calling methods, dispersing method arguments over the method name 10 to: 1 by: -1.
Every value is an object, every operation a method call
The next snippet shows how Smalltalk really treats everything as an object, radically. Take the following class User with a method that returns a string representation for that user (maybe this is what a UI would display then). If a username is undefined, it will return a string that identifies the user as an anonymous user, otherwise it will directly return the user name.
class User(object): def repr_name(self): "Return the name of the user if available, otherwise 'anonymous user'" if self.name is None: res = "anonymous user" else: res = self.name return res class User2(object): def repr_name(self): return "anonymous user" if self.name is None else self.name
They translate directly into two Smalltalk methods 
User>>getRepresentativeName "I return the name of the user if available, otherwise 'anonymous user'" |res| name == nil ifTrue: [res := 'anonymous user'] ifFalse: [res := name]. ^ res
and in a more functional style with an evaluating expression:
User2>>getRepresentativeName "I return the name of the user if available, otherwise 'anonymous user'" ^ name == nil ifTrue: 'anonymous user' ifFalse: name.
So the boolean class of Smalltalk has methods ifTrue:ifFalse, ifTrue, etc. that can replace a special syntax for conditionals like the one Python has. Using the same approach (implementing methods), we can also write list-comprehension-style expressions -- with the difference that in Smalltalk no special syntax is necessary. This example here is a solution for the first project euler problem:
divisibleRange := (1 to: N - 1) select: [ :i | i % 3 = 0 or: [ i % 5 = 0 ] ]. sumOfMultiples := divisibleRange inject: 0 into: [ :subTotal :item | subTotal + item ].
divisible_range = (i for i in range(1, N) if i % 3 == 0 or i % 5 == 0) from functools import reduce # needed for python 3 (WTF) sum_of_multiples = reduce(lambda sub_total, item: sub_total + item, divisible_range, 0)
I won't withhold, that I am pretty delighted at the fact, that Smalltalk is so flexible, that it can express stuff like list-comprehension, loops and conditionals in a similar, but probably more readable way like Python, however with fewer and simpler syntax elements. I particularly find Smalltalk's method-based syntax inject:into: to be one of the most readable ways to formulate a reduce operation .
Object Oriented But On Which Level?
So far we have seen mostly, that Smalltalk chooses sending "messages" (Smalltalk lingo for "calling methods") for a lot of cases where languages like Python implement special syntax. We have also seen that this special syntax is not necessarily more powerful than Smalltalk's message-based approach. On the other hand, apart from having less syntax elements to learn, it might not be immediately obvious whether Smalltalk's approach is more beneficial or less beneficial than the custom-syntax one.
Let us consider an example, Python has this interesting property (call it a hack or feature according to taste) that you can define a __bool__ method for your class (Python 3, __nonzero__ in Python 2). In the if statement, it seems that Python calls bool(obj), which in the following case then dispatches to obj.__bool__:
class Test: def __bool__(self): return True if Test(): print("hello") # <- is executed
compare this to an established "overloading":
if "": print("hello") # <- is not executed else: print("world") # <- is executed
The whole approach of Python is kind of weird here, nevertheless, the result is that types can define for themselves how they are interpreted. Using Smalltalk's object-oriented approach, it is quite clear that overloading the ifTrue:ifElse: message suffices at achieving such a behaviour. This is definitely simpler than Python's approach 
But what can we take from that? I have concluded, that the object-oriented approach, that I had previously considered to be concerned with architecture, i.e. the interplay of various code units. In languges like Python, Java and C++, there is a tendency of writing object-oriented code in the large and structured programming code within the methods. In Smalltalk, I can see how object-orientation can also be used within these units. At this micro-level, some properties of object-oriented programming that I am not fond of, such as state-encapsulation become less and less important, which resonates with my preference of functional programming patterns.
Getting Rid of Source Files
Another interesting (and radical) take on software development in Smalltalk is its approach to source files. In short: Smalltalk is usually not edited in source files. Instead, the IDE is not only the editor that you open files in, but instead it is more of a source code database that stores objects and methods in an image file.
Obviously, this approach never took hold, to this day, we are editing code in source files. Nevertheless, it was the inspiration for the IDEs we know today, like Eclipse, Pycharm, etc.
Ian Bicking has two blog posts that identify this as the reason why Smalltalk did not catch on (one and two). I am not sure if this was the reason back then in the 80ies, but I do think that this might be a reason in the Github-driven software world today.
The Smalltalk ecosystem looks dated. If you google for information, you'll stumble over a lot of pages that seem to come right from the 90ies. Some of those go at great lengths of explaining concepts of Smalltalk to C programmers, which is tiresome if you are already used to dynamic, object-oriented typing.
Working in an image conflicts with my typical usage of version control while programming, which kind of rules out Smalltalk for me.
What surprised me about Smalltalk is, how many 'functional' elements the language has. It is actually less awkward to write a lambda function in Smalltalk than in Scheme or Common Lisp, and the core APIs of the built-in classes seem to rely on them heavily as well.
I had seen object-orientation as an architectural feature of programming languages, meaning that I considered object-orientation to be more about structuring code on a larger scale, and not about structuring it on the level within a function/method level. Looking at Smalltalk I gained a better understanding on how object-oriented concepts can be used on all scopes.
In a way the interesting part about this comparison is the question whether a minimal, expressive syntax is preferable over a specialized, more complex syntax, that is fine-tuned for convenience. I'll just leave the judgment up to you, just remember the Zen of Python's words: "Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.".
But if you are curious, go on and download Pharo and check it out.
|||(1, 2) |
To help you read along these snippets: The caret ^ is Smalltalk's return, the [...] sections are "blocks", comparable to anonymous functions or indented parts in Python:
A class is declared in Smalltalk in the class browser. The declaration is actually a method call on the superclass. I.e. creating a subclass User involves calling the subclass:instanceVariableNames:classVariableNames:category method on the superclass Object.
Object subclass: #User instanceVariableNames: 'name' classVariableNames: '' category: 'blogexample'
Since messages (methods) are also written in the object browser, they are not syntactically associated with the object declaration (not in the way as python defines methods by having them indented in the class definition).
A conventional way of showing class association of object names is to write ClassName>>messageName. I did this in the snippets. If you write them in the Pharo System Browser, you should ignore the ClassName>> part when entering the message.
Although the Bdfl is known to dislike reduce altogether (markup is mine):
So now reduce(). This is actually the one I've always hated most, because, apart from a few examples involving + or *, almost every time I see a reduce() call with a non-trivial function argument, I need to grab pen and paper to diagram what's actually being fed into that function before I understand what the reduce() is supposed to do. So in my mind, the applicability of reduce() is pretty much limited to associative operators, and in all other cases it's better to write out the accumulation loop explicitly.
I think they are actually better than a spelled-out accumulation loop, because typically in a code-base that accumulation loop will soon be stuffed with lot's of other code that has nothing to do with the accumulation and it can become quite hard, even with pen and paper, to be sure to understand what that loop does.
|||In the case of true-false, the principle here is called truthiness, which by itsself might be debatable. I probably would rather have the programmer explicitly state the intention of a string being not empty instead of implicitly relying on a "truthiness" setting.|