编程与软件工程cs.virginia.edu编辑精选
Smalltalk 背后的设计原则（1981）
Design Principles Behind Smalltalk (1981)
2015 — 2023，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 Dan Ingalls 1981 年总结 Smalltalk 设计原则的经典文章，用一组原则阐明 Smalltalk 的哲学：系统应能被单个人完全理解，语言应作为人脑模型与硬件之间的接口，并以对象、消息和交互为核心。它不是操作手册，而是理解面向对象与动态语言源头的一手文本。
为什么经久不衰：它把“为人设计、可理解、可交互”的工程哲学讲得极清楚；即便 Smalltalk 未成主流，这些原则仍能解释现代 OO、动态语言和 IDE 交互设计的源头，因此反复被重读。
HN 评论精选
Smalltalk 未流行的原因值得看演讲；Ruby 最接近，但静态类型 OO 并非次等。
如果你听腻了 Smalltalk 的优点（我一度也是），并问“它这么好为什么没流行”，可以看 Aditya Siram 的演讲《What FP can learn from SmallTalk》，这是对无缘经历 80–90 年代的人最易懂的 Smalltalk 奇迹解说。我认为 Ruby 是当今最接近 Smalltalk 的主流语言：一切皆对象、尽量晚绑定。但 Smalltalk/Alan Kay 那套互联对象构成递归计算系统的愿景并非唯一“真正”的 OO；从 Simula 到 C++、Java、C# 也是 OO（或类导向），只是静态类型。OO 是一个词而非数学定义，这些变体相似到可归为一类；而且静态类型化在解释型语言中也增长，更多是产业需求和程序员偏好而非营销，把静态类型 OO 视为低于“真正理想”是一种伤害。
jasim查看英文原文
If you're tired of hearing about the virtues of Smalltalk (like I was at one point) and ask "if it is so good, why isn't it popular?", then watch @deech's talk (Aditya Siram) - "What FP can learn from SmallTalk" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baxtyeFVn3w I think it is the most accessible explanation of the marvel of Smalltalk, for those who were not lucky to work with it during the late 80-90s. Also I think Ruby is the mainstream language that is closest to Smalltalk today, with the idea that everything is an object and late-binding as much as possible. One thing I can't help point out is that Smalltalk / Alan Kay's vision of interconnected objects forming a recursive computing system is not the only "true" vision of OO out there. From Simula thru C++ and then Java and C# also are object-oriented (or class-oriented for those who care about the distinction), but they are statically typed. It is also OO because OO is a word, not a mathematical definition, and when people talk about OO, there is enough similarity between all these variations that we consider all of them to be in the same camp. Plus with the growing move towards strict static typing even in interpreted languages, which I think is driven by actual industry needs and programmer preferences than external marketing, it is becoming a disservice to think of statically typed OO languages as being somehow inferior to the true ideal of object-oriented programming.
现代专业化背离“单个人可理解”原则，抑制创造力。
原则 1 说“系统若要服务于创造精神，就必须能被单个人完全理解。”但全球范围内我们各方面都在违背它，走向狭窄专业化。这种趋势是中央印钞/权力机构资金流有意推动的，结果正如该原则所说：个体创造精神匮乏。我们学习的工具和受训方式都在反对创造力。过去十年能看出大玩家如何把行业引向错误方向，所以别再问为什么 40 年不用类 Smalltalk 技术。
madmaniak查看英文原文
Principle 1 "If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual." Globally we go in every aspect against this principle going into narrow specialisations. Such a movement is made on a purpose by the flow of money of central printers/powers, and the result is according to the principle - luck of creative spirit of single individuals. The tools which we are learning and the way we are trained is against creativity. In last 10y perspective is visible how the industry is mislead in wrong directions by the biggest players. So don't ask why we don't use Smalltak-like technology in 40y.
Smalltalk 纯粹、交互性强，但镜像开发不如文件式 Common Lisp；商业化导致衰落。
对我来说，Smalltalk 和 C 有同一种美：纯粹、简单。两者都能让我把整个语言装进脑子里，从而把精力全用在解决真正的问题上。它的交互性一旦理解就非常棒；没体验过的人多半看不到意义，因为他们预设许多它带来的能力是不可能的。我仍不完全接受基于镜像的开发循环；Common Lisp 能提供同等甚至更强的交互性，又不必放弃文件。它被杀死，是因为在免费替代品出现时还坚持靠它盈利。
codr7查看英文原文
To me Smalltalk has the same kind of beauty to it as C, it's pure and simple. They both allow me to keep the entire language in my head, which means I can spend all my energy on solving real problems. And the interactivity is awesome once you wrap your head around it. If you haven't experienced it, you most likely won't see the point since you assume much of what it enables is impossible. I'm still not sold on the image-based dev cycle, Common Lisp allows the same level of interactivity and even more power without giving up files. They killed it by trying to keep selling it for profit at a time when free alternatives started appearing.
“语言连接人脑模型与硬件”的假设过于自信，因人脑模型未被真正理解。
文中说编程语言是“描述语言，充当人脑模型与计算机硬件模型之间的接口”。我们知道计算硬件里的模型长什么样，但我们真的知道人脑里的模型吗？别误会，我喜欢这份文档，但不禁觉得这种自负很危险，而且那个时代的工作里似乎很常见。
state查看英文原文
"...a language of description (programming language) that serves as an interface between the models in the human mind and those in computing hardware" We do know what the models in our computing hardware look like, but do we actually know the models in the human mind? Don't get me wrong, I love everything about this document. But I can't help but feel like that conceit is really dangerous. And seems common in this era of work.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
开源应用架构
The Architecture of Open Source Applications
《开源软件架构》（AOSA）是一本在线免费书，邀请知名开源项目的作者亲自剖析其内部设计，涵盖 SQLAlchemy、LLVM、Audacity、Apache、Bash 等系统。
编程与软件工程上首页 9 次 · 2011–2024aosabook.org编辑精选编程语言简史：简短、不完整且多半错误
A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages
一篇以戏谑、故意不准确的方式回顾编程语言史的博客文章，用夸张轶事和讽刺定义串起 Lisp、C、C++、Java、JavaScript、PHP 等语言。
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2021james-iry.blogspot.comSQLite 是如何测试的
How SQLite is tested
SQLite 官方文档页，系统介绍 SQLite 的测试体系：多种测试方法（TCL 测试、模糊测试、回归测试、静态分析等）和海量测试用例，展示了这个小型开源项目如何靠极致测试获得…
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2025sqlite.org编辑精选高级编程语言（2009）
Advanced programming languages (2009)
Matt Might 的经典文章，按用途推荐“高级编程语言”：如果追求就业就选主流语言，如果追求表达力、学术研究或创业，则推荐 Haskell、OCaml、Scala 等函数式语…
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2022matt.might.net我的 Forth 与栈机器经历
Yosefk - My history with Forth & stack machines
作者以亲身经历回顾了使用 Forth 语言和栈式机器的历程：既赞叹其简洁优雅、代码量小、可自举的优点，也坦率指出栈操作在实际编程中的痛苦，以及 Forth 社区文化中的问题。
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2010–2024yosefk.com编辑精选