Smalltalk runtime features absent on Objective-C?

Question

I don't know well Smalltalk, but I know some Objective-C. And I'm interested a lot in Smalltalk.

Their syntax are a lot different, but essential runtime structures (that means features) are very similar. And runtime features are supported by runtime.

I thought two languages are very similar in that meaning, but there are many features on Smalltalk that absent on Objective-C runtime. For an example, thisContext that manipulates call-stack. Or non-local return that unwinds block execution. The blocks. It was only on Smalltalk, anyway now it's implemented on Objective-C too.

Because I'm not expert on Smalltalk, I don't know that sort of features. Especially for advanced users. What features that only available in Smalltalk? Essentially, I want to know the advanced features in Smalltalk. So it's OK the features already implemented on Objective-C like block.

Answer 1

While I'm reasonably experienced within Objective-C, I'm not as deeply versed in Smalltalk as many, but I've done a bit of it.

It would be difficult to really enumerate a list of which language has which features for a couple of reasons.

First, what is a "language feature" at all? In Objective-C, even blocks are really built in conjunction with the Foundation APIs and things like the for(... in ...) syntax requires conformance to relatively high level protocol. Can you really talk about a language any more without also considering features of the most important API(s)? Same goes for Smalltalk.

Secondly, the two are very similar in terms of how messaging works and how inheritance is implemented, but they are also very different in how code goes from a thought in your head to running on your machine. Conceptually different to the point that it makes a feature-by-feature comparisons between the two difficult.

The key difference between the two really comes down to the foundation upon which they are built. Objective-C is built on top of C and, thus, inherits all the strengths (speed, portability, flexibility, etc..) and weaknesses (effectively a macro assembler, goofy call ABI, lack of any kind of safety net) of C & compiled-to-the-metal languages. While Objective-C layers on a bunch of relatively high level OO features, both compile time and runtime, there are limits because of the nature of C.

Smalltalk, on the other hand, takes a much more top-to-bottom-pure-OO model; everything, down to the representation of a bit, is an object. Even the call stack, exceptions, the interfaces, ...everything... is an object. And Smalltalk runs on a virtual machine which is typically, in and of itself, a relatively small native byte code interpreter that consumes a stream of smalltalk byte code that implements the higher level functionality. In smalltalk, it is much less about creating a standalone application and much more about configuring the virtual machine with a set of state and functionality that renders the features you need (wherein that configuration can effectively be snapshotted and distributed like an app).

All of this means that you always -- outside of locked down modes -- have a very high level shell to interact with the virtual machine. That shell is really also typically your IDE. Instead of edit-compile-fix-compile-run, you are generally writing code in an environment where the code is immediately live once it is syntactically sound. The lines between debugger, editor, runtime, and program are blurred.

Answer 2

Not a language feature, but the nil-eating behaviour of most Objective-C frameworks gives a very different developing experience than the pop-up-a-debugger, fix and continue of smalltalk.

Even though Objective-C now supports blocks, the extremely ugly syntax is unlikely to lead to much use. In Smalltalk blocks are used a lot.