I have a task to convert COBOL code to .NET. Are there any converters available? I am trying to understand COBOL code in high level. I have a trouble understanding the COBOL code. Is there any flowchart generators? I appreciate any help.
Thank you..
Migrating software systems from one language or operating environment to another is always a challenge. Here are
a few things to consider:
Legacy code tends to be poorly structured as a result of a
long history of quick fixes and problem work-arounds. This really ups the signal-to-noise ratio
when trying to warp your head around what is really going on.
Converting code leads to further "de-structuring"
to compensate for mis-matches between the source and
target implementation platforms. When you start from a poorly structured base (legacy system),
the end result may be totally un-intelligible.
Documentation of the legacy architecture and/or business processes is generally so far out of
date that it is worse than useless, it may actually be misleading.
Complexity of COBOL code is almost always under estimated.
A number of "features" will be promulgated into the converted system that were originally
built to compensate for things that "couldn't be done" at one time (due to smaller memories,
slower computers etc.). Many of these may now be non-issues and you really don't want them.
There are no obvious or straight forward ways to refactor legacy process driven
systems into an equivalent object oriented system (at least not in a meaningful way).
There have been successful projects that migrated COBOL directly into Java. See naca.
However, the end result is only something its mother (or another COBOL programmer) could love, see this discussion
In general I would be suspicious of any product or tool making claims to convert your COBOL legacy
system into anything but another version of COBOL (e.g. COBOL.net). To this end you still
end up with what is essentially a COBOL system. If this approach is acceptable then you
might want to review this white paper from Micro Focus.
IMHO, your best bet for replacing COBOL is to re-engineer your system. If you ever find
a silver bullet to get from where you are to where you want to be - write a book, become
a consultant and make many millions of dollars.
Sorry to have provided such a negative answer, but if you are working with anything
but a trivial legacy system, the problem is going to be anything but trivial to solve.
Note: Don't bother with flowcharting the existing system. Try to get a handle on process input/output and program to program data transformation and flow. You need to understand the business function here, not a specific implementation of it.
Micro Focus and Fujitsu both have COBOL products that work with .NET. Micro Focus allow you to download a product trial, while the Fujitsu NetCOBOL site has a number of articles and case studies.
Micro Focus
http://www.microfocus.com/products/micro-focus-developer/micro-focus-cobol/windows-and-net/micro-focus-visual-cobol.aspx
Fujitsu
http://www.netcobol.com/products/Fujitsu-NetCOBOL-for-.NET/overview
[Note: I work for Micro Focus]
Hi
Actually, making COBOL applications available on the .NET framework is pretty straightforward (contrary to claim made in one of the earlier responses). Fujitsu and Micro Focus both have COBOL compilers that can create ILASM code for execution in the CLR.
Micro Focus Visual COBOL (http://www.microfocus.com/visualcobol) makes it particularly easy to deploy traditional, procedural COBOL as managed code with full support for COBOL data types, file systems etc. It also includes an updated OO COBOL syntax that takes away a lot of the verbosity & complexity of the syntax to be very easy to write COBOL code based on C# examples. It's unique approach also makes it easy to use all the Visual Studio tools such as IntelliSense.
The original question mentioned "convert" and I would strongly recommend against any approach that requires the source code to be converted to some other language before being used in a .NET environment. The amount of effort and risk involved is highly unlikely to be worth any benefits accrued. On the contrary, keeping the code in COBOL maintains the existing, working code and allows for the option to deploy onto other platforms in the future. For example, how about having a single set of source code and having the option to deploy into .NET as a native language and into a Java environment without changing a line of source code?
I recommend you get a trial copy of Visual COBOL from the link above and see how you can use your existing code in .NET without making any changes.
This is not an easy task. COBOL has fundamental ideas about data types that do not map well with the object-oriented .NET framework (e.g. in COBOL, all data types are represented in terms of fixed-size buffers) and in particular the way groups and arrays work do not map well to .NET classes.
I believe there are COBOL compilers that can actually compile .NET bytecode, but they would have their own runtime libraries to manage all of that. It might be worth looking at one of these compilers and simply leaving the legacy code in COBOL.
Other than that, line-by-line translation is probably not possible. Look at the code at a higher level and translate blocks of code at a time (e.g. at the procedure level or even higher).
There are a lot mechanisms how to convert COBOL to modern scalable environments, such as .NET or Java.
The first is a migration to a new environment with saving the existing COBOL code with some minor modifications (NET Microfocus COBOL);
The second is a migration to a new platform with simulation of COBOL statements and constructions. When there are some additional NET/Java libraries to simulate some specific COBOL logic:
ACCEPT goes to NETLibrary.Accept and so on.
The third approach is the most valuable one, when you migrate to "pure" NET/Java code with all the benefits of the new environment. It can be easily maintained and developed in the future.
However, the unique expertise and toolkits are required for this approach, and there are only a few players on the global market that can help you in this case.
If we are talking about automatic migration, the number of players decreases greatly and, unfortunately for you, you have to pay for the specific technologies and tools (like ours).
However, it is a better idea to invest your money in your future growth in the modern environment, than to spend your money on the "simulation" of old technologies.
Translations is not an easy task. Besides Micro Focus and Fujitsu there is also Raincode that offers a free version of Cobol that nicely integrates with Visual Studio.
Hi I'd like to pick up one FP language (it's always a pain when you work in a position that does not require you learn much), and after doing some research, I felt Erlang and OCaml are the two that I'd really like to get my feet wet for the following reasons:
1) I work mainly on high-availability web server back-end system in C++. I heard Erlang is a great fix in scalability and fault-tolerance. Though I don't think my current company will have any project in Erlang, I feel Erlang may be a good language for my long term career development.
2) I have a co-worker who is really good at OCaml, I mean he is really good at it (but he does not work on that for his daily work now. He maintains several library). So I figured that he may be a good resource if I learn OCaml.
My interests are mainly on distributed systems (my current work is some midldle-ware development work) and high-performance computing (guess what, I had a couple of years graduate school research on it, in particular PDE in Financial applications -- so I always felt I may go back to do some finance modeling work maybe sometime later)
Any suggestions? Please don't suggest "learn both", as I am not that smart :-)
Thanks
Ocaml is a great language -- one of my favorites -- but if your interest is distributed systems than I'd recommend going with Erlang, which is head and shoulders ahead of the other FP languages with regards to distributed systems (although there's an offshoot of Ocaml called Jocaml which has some interesting aspects).
Ocaml is weaker even when just looking at parallelism, given its underlying architecture. Both Haskell and Clojure have better stories here, imho. (That said: once you get one FP language, you'll be able to carry the fundamental principles to other languages pretty easily, and they might be useful in the future. Both Scala and Clojure could easily sneak their way into organizations by virtue of the JVM.)
I think Ocaml is a great way to get started in FP, and Erlang is not very difficult once you have the basic FP concepts down.
But the suggestion from 'aneccodeal' is fantastic-- i.e., if you are interested in Ocaml and have a friend who is already strong in it, by all means develop a concurrency (perhaps MPI) library for it.
Keep in mind, however, that one of the barriers to making Ocaml concurrent is the lack of concurrent garbage collection (or so I have read).
If you have a co-worker who is "really good" with OCaml then it sounds like you have a great resource assuming that s/he is willing to answer your questions. It's always easier to learn when there's someone knowledgeable around that you can ask questions of if you get stuck.
Yes it's true that OCaml doesn't have the best story when it comes to parallelism, but there are ways to get parallelism in OCaml (fork-based seems to be the most common - checkout prelude.ml which includes things like parallel map: http://github.com/kig/preludeml/tree/master ). Also, it seems that Erlang's Actor-based concurrency is really fairly easy to duplicate in other languages. Maybe you and your co-worker could work on a project to develop an Actor-based concurrency library for OCaml? That would give you a nice learning project that you co-worker would probably find interesting enough to work on with you... in addition you could end up creating something useful for the entire OCaml community.
I would also consider to look at F# (especially when VS 2010 is out).
Learning a new language is a lot easier and more convenient with a nice IDE.
F# and OCaml are very similar as you can see in other SO threads (e.g. here)
I've always been interested in writing and designing programming languages. Of course, it's pretty difficult to find an employer that will let you write a programming language as part of your job. So I'm looking for the "next best thing".
What fields of programming will let me get some experience solving some related problems? Or what kinds of employers are most likely to view all of my dinky little interpreters as relevant experience?
If your interest in language design is irrepressible, get a Ph.D. and make it your area of research. You can count on academia to support all manner of unprofitable activity.
None. The bulk of the professionals in that field do not design languages for a living, but retarget existing compilers to new (usually embedded) targets, or work on source2source conversion systems for legacy code, making a few language extensions in the process.
You should really ask yourself if you want this, because, besides from an extremely lucky shot, that is the realistic outlook of what you will do if you go into this industry.
Remember that the big public toolchain industry is not very profitable at the moment, and that maybe a good 100 languages are in largescale pulbic use and continually maintained, after 30 years of programming languages creation.
I know this is is very gloom, but I hope it sets you on the path to chuck the romantic, hobbyist view, and start researching how the real world in this field looks like.
Moreover, having done small hobby projects on your own is not really a pre. You need to show that you can work on large projects in a team, more than that you can create a small interpreter on your own. If you really want to pursue this, I'd recommend:
stay in school, and get a bachelor (preferably a master or PHD) in CS.
join some opensource team that works on a significant project in the field. gcc, but also the Java world, Tracemonkey (Mozilla), Mono etc. Verifiable experience in real world scenarios is very important.
I think the best way to get into this type of work would be to undertake an advanced degree with a specific focus on language design, compilers etc. It's going to be very tough for you to walk in off the street into a private company and start writing new language features otherwise.
You could also shoot a little higher and on your own, or with a small team, produce something that is much more than just a dinky little interpreter. Show your potential employer that you can produce something useful.
I have worked as an embedded programmer for the past ten years. Before that I wrote compilers (and assemblers, linkers, debuggers, etc.) for 20 years.
My co-workers joke that I turn every problem in to a parsing problem. And they're right. I've used techniques that are appropriate for language design many times during the course of my career.
Today, I play around with compiler stuff on the side: http://ellcc.org. It helps me scratch my language itch.
Actually, there is a fair bit of work going on with visual programming. It isn't exactly traditional programming language work as we know it but there is a need for it. For example, a lot of advanced data analysis tools rely on visual programming tools (Pentaho). You don't have to look too hard to find good practical uses of visual programming.
To get into visual programming languages, you will need to do an advanced degree with an advisor in the area. You will need to do some human computer interaction / interface work in addition to the programming language stuff.
An employer that has a rich "domain" (i.e. a complex industry) can benefit from a "domain specific language".
Will they realise this? Unlikely. They'll be too likely trapped in their deep domain (and entrenched legacy systems) to see that a targeted language could help unclog the mire.
But if you bury yourself in a complex industry for long enough to gain rich domain knowledge you may then be able to turn them with your own skunkwork DSL. Slim chance.
Stay in academia. If you want to develop a new language your chances of being paid to do so are vanishingly small. Newer languages tend to be expressions of a novel problem domain, and you only really encounter the chance to develop them where (a) novel problems are part of the scenery, and (b) no-one is troubled by the necessity to actually earn a living.
Please take your time over it, as well. Speaking as a jobbing developer, the last thing I need is another blasted language to learn :-)
In static analysis there is a lot to do, and the problems that come up are related to those that interest you.
Most currently popular languages came out of a geniune NEED to scratch a particular ITCH. Python came about because some non-C programmers NEEDed to customize inputs their C programs and libraries. Lua came out of the NEED to embed a scripting language in to C programs. Erlang was created to address the NEED of 99.9999999% uptime, hot code loading, and highly concurrent execution. Perl came out of the NEED to easily write programs that parsed text files.
So the very simple question any employer will be asking themselves, and you should ask yourself is. What NEED can I supply a solution to that doesn't exist. Hobby work very seldom shows that you are providing solutions to a NEED, most of the time it is showing that you like to re-invent the wheel for the sake of re-inventing the wheel.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Ruby is becoming popular, largely from the influence Ruby on Rails, but it feels like it is currently struggling through its adolescence. There are a lot of similarities between Ruby and Smalltalk -- maglev is a testament to that. Despite having a more unusual syntax, Smalltalk has all (if not more) of the object-oriented beauty of Ruby.
From what I have read, Smalltalk seems to have Ruby beat on:
Maturity (developed in the 1970's)
Stability
Commercial support
Distributed source control (understands structure of code, not just text diffing)
Several implementations of the VM
Cross-platform support
The seaside web framework as a strong alternative to Rails
It seems like Ruby is just reinventing the wheel. So, why don't Ruby developers use SmallTalk? What does Ruby have the Smalltalk doesn't?
For the record: I'm a Ruby guy with little to no experience in Smalltalk, but I'm starting to wonder why.
Edit: I think the ease-of-scripting issue has been addressed by GNU Smalltalk. As I understand it, this allows you to write smalltalk in regular old text files, and you no longer need to be in the Smalltalk IDE. You can then run your scripts with:
gst smalltalk_file
I'm more of a Pythonista than a Ruby user, however the same things hold for Ruby for much the same reasons.
The architecture of Smalltalk is somewhat insular whereas Python and Ruby were built from the ground up to facilitate integration. Smalltalk never really gained a body of hybrid application support in the way that Python and Ruby have, so the concept of 'smalltalk as embedded scripting language' never caught on.As an aside, Java was not the easiest thing to interface with other code bases (JNI is fairly clumsy), but that did not stop it from gaining mindshare. IMO the interfacing argument is significant - ease of embedding hasn't hurt Python - but this argument only holds moderate weight as not all applications require this capability. Also, later versions of Smalltalk did substantially address the insularity.
The class library of most of the main smalltalk implementations (VisualWorks, VisualAge etc.) was large and had reputation for a fairly steep learning curve. Most key functionality in Smalltalk is hidden away somewhere in the class library, even basic stuff like streams and collections. The language paradigm is also something of a culture shock for someone not familiar with it, and the piecemeal view of the program presented by the browser is quite different to what most people were used to.The overall effect is that Smalltalk got a (somewhat deserved) reputation for being difficult to learn; it takes quite a bit of time and effort to become a really proficient Smalltalk programmer. Ruby and Python are much easier to learn and to bring new programmers up to speed with.
Historically, mainstream Smalltalk implementations were quite expensive and needed exotic hardware to run, as can be seen this net.lang.st80 posting from 1983. Windows 3.1, NT and '95 and OS/2 were the first mass market operating systems on mainstream hardware capable of supporting a Smalltalk implementation with decent native system integration. Previously, Mac or workstation hardware were the cheapest platforms capable of running Smalltalk effectively. Some implementations (particularly Digitalk) supported PC operating systems quite well and did succeed in gaining some traction.However, OS/2 was never that successful and Windows did not achieve mainstream acceptance until the mid 1990s. Unfortunately this coincided with the rise of the Web as a platform and a large marketing push behind Java. Java grabbed most of the mindshare in the latter part of the 1990s, rendering Smalltalk a bit of an also-ran.
Ruby and Python work in a more conventional toolchain and are not tightly coupled to a specific development environment. While the Smalltalk IDEs I have used are nice enough I use PythonWin for Python development largely because it has a nice editor with syntax highlighting and doesn't get underfoot.However, Smalltalk is was designed to be used with an IDE (in fact, Smalltalk was the original graphical IDE) and still has some nice features not replicated by other systems. Testing code with highlight and 'Show it' is still a very nice feature that I have never seen in a Python IDE, although I can't speak for Ruby.
Smalltalk was somewhat late coming to the web application party. Early efforts such as VisualWave were never terribly successful and it was not until Seaside came out that a decent web framework got acceptance in Smalltalk circles. In the meantime Java EE has had a complete acceptance lifecycle starting with raving fanboys promoting it and finally getting bored and moving onto Ruby ;-}Ironically, Seaside is starting to get a bit of mindshare among the cognoscenti so we may find that Smalltalk rides that cycle back into popularity.
Having said that, Smalltalk is a very nice system once you've worked out how to drive it.
When I leave my house in the morning to go to work, I often struggle with the decision to make a left or right turn out of my drive way (I live in the middle of a street). Either way will get me to my destination. One way leads me to the highway which, depending on traffic, will probably get me to the office the quickest. I get to drive very fast for at least part of the way and I have a good chance of seeing a pretty girl or two on their way to work :-)
The other way allows me to travel down a very enchanting, windy back road with complete tree cover. That path is quite enjoyable and of the two approaches is definitely the more fun, though it means that I will get to the office later than I would have had I taken the highway. Each way has its merits. On days that I am in a big hurry, I will usually take the highway though I may run into traffic and I also increase my chances of getting into an accident (if I am not careful in my haste). Other days I may choose the woody path and be driving along, enjoying the scenery and realize that I am running late. I may try to speed up, raising my chances of getting a ticket or causing an accident myself.
Neither way is better than the other. They each have their benefits and risks, and each will get me to my goal.
I think your question is somewhat missing the point.
You shouldn't choose, you should learn them both!
If you truly are in a position that you can choose the next framework(vm, infrastructure) then you need to decided what to use and can ask a specific question with pros and cons from the perspective of what your application is inteded to do.
I have used smalltalk (love it) and ruby (love it).
At home or for open source project I can use every language I like, but when doing work I have to adopt.
I started to use ruby (at work) because we needed some scripting language that behaved more-or-less equally under solaris,linux and windows(98,2000,xp). Ruby was at that time unknown to average-joe and there didn't exist any rails. But it was easy to sell to everyone involved.
(Why not python? the truth ? I once spend a week hunting for a bug that happened when a terminal converted my space to a tab and the intending got messed up).
So people started to code more and more in ruby because it was so relaxing, enjoying and not a cloud on the sky.
Paul Graham sums it up
It's true, certainly, that most people don't choose programming languages simply based on their merits. Most programmers are told what language to use by someone else.
and
To be attractive to hackers, a
language must be good for writing the
kinds of programs they want to write.
And that means, perhaps surprisingly,
that it has to be good for writing
throwaway programs.
And when were at the Lisp land try to replace LISP with smalltalk
Ruby’s libraries, community, and momentum are good
So if LISP is still more powerful than
Ruby, why not use LISP? The typical
objections to programming in LISP are:
There aren’t enough libraries.
We can’t hire LISP programmers.
LISP has gone nowhere in the past 20 years.
These aren’t overwhelming objections,
but they’re certainly worth
considering.
and
Now, given a choice between a powerful
language, and popular language, it may
make excellent sense to pick the
powerful one. But if the difference in
power is minor, being popular has all
sorts of nice advantages. In 2005, I’d
think long and hard before choosing
LISP over Ruby. I’d probably only do
it if I needed optimized code, or
macros which acted as full-fledged
compilers.
I would say the opposite: Smalltalk syntax is one of the simplest and powerful programming language syntaxes.
It's true the languages are very much alike. The shallow way to interpret that is to call Ruby a Smalltalk cover band. The more reasonable interpretation is that Smalltalk's closed system isolated it, while Ruby's participation in the Unix ecology and habit of appropriating features from every language under the sun gives it an infinitely gentler adoption curve and effortless integration with kickass tools like Git.
Giles Bowkett
Guess who said this? (quote is close, maybe not exact): "I always thought Smalltalk would beat Java. I just didn't know if would be called 'Ruby' when it did so."
Drum roll ....
...
The answer is ... Kent Beck
Stephane Ducasse has some great Smalltalk books available here:
http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html
so although the Smalltalk community is not as prolific as the Ruby and Rails communities, there is still some great help out there.
what does Ruby have that Smalltalk doesn't?
Massive, current support by major platforms (IronRuby and jRuby) that enrich the set of libraries
Evangelists like Dave Thomas who, for years, have been touring around the country preaching the gospel of their language. I have seen Dave at Java conferences stating he doesn't know Java and that he prefers Ruby.
Strong, current real estate on the bookshelves
The creator of Ruby has said that he thinks about the programmer: Ruby's syntax seems to have this Zen appeal. It is hard to pin down, yet seems to galvanize the fans.
Creative, dynamic presentations like Giles and this one that gain mindshare
I think your point is well-taken. As a friend once put it, Ruby might be "old wine in a new bottle" vis-a-vis Smalltalk. But sometimes the new bottle matters. A wine has to be in the right place at the right time.
Beats me. I spent a year checking out Ruby and doing some smallish projects to see how I liked it. I guess I'm a Smalltalk bigot because every time I'd sit down to work with Ruby I'd sigh and think "I'd really rather be doing this in Smalltalk". Finally I gave in and went back to Smalltalk. Now I'm happier. Happier is gooder.
Which of course begs the question, "Why?". In no particular order:
Because the IDE blows away anything else I've ever worked with. This includes a bunch of platforms from ISPF on IBM mainframes to Microsoft's Visual (.*), include things such as Visual Basic 4-6, Visual C++ (various incarnations), Borland's Turbo Pascal and descendants (e.g. Delphi), and stuff on DEC machines in both character mode and under X-Windows.
Because the image is a beautiful place to live. I can find what I want in there. If I can't figure out how to do something I know that somewhere in the image is an example of what I'm trying to do - all I have to do is hunt until I find it. And it's self-documenting - if you want to see the details of how something works you just open a browser on the class you're interested in, look at the method, and that's how it works. (OK, eventually you'll hit something that calls a primitive, and then it's "here there be dragons", but it's usually understandable from context). It's possible to do similar things in Ruby/C++/C, but it's not as easy. Easy is better.
The language is minimal and consistent. Three kinds of messages - unary, binary, and keyword. That describes the priority of execution, too - unary messages first, then binary messages, then keyword messages. Use parentheses to help things out. Dang little syntax, really - it's all done with message sends. (OK, assignment isn't a message send, it's an operator. So's the 'return' operator (^). Blocks are enclosed by square brace pairs ([ ] ). Might be one or two other 'magic' bits in there, but darn little...).
Blocks. Yeah, I know, they're there in Ruby (and others), but dang it, you literally can't program in Smalltalk without using them. You're forced to learn how to use them. Sometimes being forced is good.
Object-oriented programming without compromise - or alternatives, for that matter. You can't pretend that you're "doing objects" while still doing the same old thing.
Because it will stretch your brain. The comfortable constructs we've all gotten used to (if-then-else, do-while, for( ; ; ), etc) are no longer there so you have to Learn Something New. There are equivalents to all the above (and more), but you're going to have to learn to think differently. Differently is good.
On the other hand this may just be the ramblings of a guy who's been programming since the days when mainframes ruled the earth, we had to walk five miles to work through blinding snowstorms, uphill both ways, and computers used donuts for memory. I've got nothing against Ruby/Java/C/C++/, they're all useful in context, but give me Smalltalk or give me...well, maybe I should learn Lisp or Scheme or... :-)
Smalltalk:
people forwards ifTrue: [think] ifFalse: [not thinking]
Ruby:
people think forwards unless thinking backwards
1) Smalltalk's RPN-like control flow by messages is like Lisp - it's regular and cool but weirds people out.
2) Ruby lets people write code using the idiomatic way people speak - do blah unless there's a reason not to.
update rewrote the Smalltalk sample to actually be more legal code..
Ruby is the current buzz language. It's easier to market software built with it right now than a language developed in the 70s.
Community! Ruby and especially Rails has such a great community. When messing around with smalltalk it seemed that there were not as many screen casts, articles, blog posts, etc. written about Smalltalk.
You answered the question in your first line: "Ruby is becoming popular"
There are a lot of interesting modules, projects and such based around Ruby.
If you have trouble doing something in Ruby, it will be trivial to find help somewhere.
Ruby is installed on a lot of computers now (It's included by default on OS X, many Linux distros, and there are good installers for Windows) - I've not seen smalltalk installed by default on any machine I've used..
I would say wether or not one language is superior to another is irrelevant.. As an example, PHP may not be the "best" language ever, but I would still consider using it over Ruby on Rails (a "better" tool for creating websites) because it is so widespread.
Basically, specific pros and cons of a language are far less important than everything surrounding it - namely the community.
Ruby (or any other language) is more popular than Smalltalk (or any other language) because we live in a chaotic universe. To wit:
From Dave Thomas himself, "[after
the] video on 'How to Build a Blog in
Ten Minutes'... Ruby went from being
a nice little niche language, to
being 'a language you wrote Rails
apps in'" (Ruby Conference 2010
keynote).
Early Smalltalk vendors charged prohibitively
Smalltalk, because it was invented (ahead of its time) 30 years ago, occurs to many as an old, "dead" language (like FORTRAN)
corporations consider Smalltalk such a competitive advantage that they hide its use
While the languages are similar in OO features, Smalltalk's killer advantage is the live, open environment (the much-misunderstood 'image'). After you check out this example of programming in Smalltalk, the debate is over.
For me its not so much a case of what Ruby has, but what Ruby hasn't. And the thing that it doesn't have is the need for a VM and complete environment.
Smalltalk is great - its where I learnt OO concepts, but for ease of use I go for Ruby. I can write Ruby code in my favourite editor and run it form the command line.
So, for me, thats what I choose Ruby over Smalltalk.
I think everyone who has been working with Ruby for a while recognizes its deep debt to Smalltalk. As one of these people, what do I like about Ruby over Smalltalk? I think from a strictly language perspective, it's the sugar. Ruby is deliberately a very syntax-sugary language, whereas Smalltalk is a very syntax-minimal language. Ruby is essentially the Smalltalk object model with Perlish syntax sugar. I happen to like the sugar and find it makes programming more fun.
You can find a job pretty easily doing Ruby. Although I really love Smalltalk, it's virtually impossible to get into the Smalltalk niche. There is work around in it, but if you didn't get in when it was popular it's virtually impossible now.
All the other reasons pale into insignificance because you need to spend plenty of time, focused on real work to learn a language properly. If you're not independently wealthy, the best way to do that is exposure to it at work.
Because Smalltalk distributions were priced in multiples of $1000USD whereas Ruby is free.
Ruby is to Smalltalk as Arabic numerals are to Roman numerals. Same math, easier syntax.
I've done a little Smalltalk - the IDE is one thing I remember - does Ruby have good IDE support?
Use Ruby because it has might have business legs, Smalltalk doesn't.
I can tell you from personal experience. Still using Smalltalk, love it, and have used a couple flavors. Although Smalltalk is a great language, and is everything you mentioned, you wont likely convince the average CIO/CTO to use Smalltalk on a new project. Of course, you might even have a hard time convincing a conservative CIO/CTO to use Ruby. In the end you have to be very careful if you want sustained long term commercial support and the ability to find off-the-street employees that can support your systems in the future. As an example, Smalltalk was a really big thing in the early 90's and IBM invested heavily into it in the late 90's. For IBM Smalltalk was going to be the next language for all business applications. IBM put Smalltalk on everything including their mainframe systems. Java became popular, took over the market, and Smalltalk became a niche player. Over a year ago IBM dumped the language (their term is sunset). Also, take a look at the History. ParkPlace and Digitalk where the first major commercial players in the Smalltalk arena, they merged and then went out of business.
I love both Smalltalk and Ruby - but have found that Ruby is more applicable to what I do daily, and is closer to my heart (practically speaking). What does Ruby offer that Smalltalk doesn't?
Text-based scripting
Low implementation requirements (runs in more places)
Easier to learn and justify (Perl and Python programmers will have no trouble
Easier to move programs around - text files!
Interfaces well with native environment
Anywhere Java runs, jRuby runs...
Bigger and much more active community
Some have mentioned gst (GNU Smalltalk); the problems still hold.
Use whatever makes you more powerful and faster to beat your challenge.
For us, a little in house framework, we built in top of seaside is really our superpower.
I love the RoR community, it has the right attitude. That's very very valuable. But at the same time, technologically, seaside makes you stronger against more complicated problems.
You can do great seaside web apps using open-source stuff.
dabbledb was a sartup based on seaside and, hey! Avi sold it to twitter in june this year!
I say you don't need to wait for others to approve your initiative.
Just go for it. Make it done. Show us that works.
You're not alone. We are on the same boat.
Interesting perspective from Robert Martin (from RailsConf 2009): "What Killed Smalltalk Could Kill Ruby, Too"
I think part of the problem is the development-environment-is-the-runtime. This gives a lot of power, but it also presents a larger learning curve.
Here is a hello world tutorial.
This is very different from other languages where I just need to know how to open a text editor and copy and paste text, hit save, and run a compiler. I HAVE to know how to use the environment. That tutorial doesn't even show me how to create a basic program (which is likely more a fault of that tutorial) that I can run.
There is definately a higher cost of just getting things going than most other languages.
Most languages have some nice eye-catching code that they can show off. I haven't seen that with Smalltalk. I also think that there is some stigma to Smalltalk because it has been around so long and it is still relatively obscure.
I think the BIGGEST difference is that Ruby is much more similar to perl in terms of USEAGE. Smalltalk never got a foothold into the "scripting" languages.
The VM is really cool and I hope ruby will have something similar to it so we can treat everything on our OS that is written in ruby as object in memory space, however until then I simply enjoy Ruby's terse, short syntax, the ability to just write a tiny script and reuse it later. Ruby got all the advantages of perl and the OOP is much more similar to smalltalk than perl's OOP hack.
I would go further than Jonke's answer, and say there are now a large number of languages that have a very strong community, almost enough to suit every taste, and a subset of these have mainstream recognition (i.e. your manager will let you use them at work as well).
It's easy to learn the basics of a language, but to actually use it effectively you need to invest enough time to learn the platform and the tools, as well as the syntax and the idioms. IIRC, McConnell claims that it takes about three years to become truly proficient.
Given those things, it's hard to justify spending a lot of time on languages like LISP and Smalltalk, although they are interesting and perhaps educational to look at.
As a latecomer to discussion, the main problem with Smalltalk and Lisp is that you can't run them with CGI or FastCGI on shared hosting.
The unwashed masses are never going to use them if they need VPS or dedicated servers to use them. IMHO Seaside is superior to almost anything out ther, but will it run on Dreamhost or Webfaction?