== Long-ago, Smalltalk systems could be file-copied from say win to mac to unices and would just work.
== Not standardized. Language vendors used proprietary code to lock-in customers and that fragmented the skills base. Skilled Smalltalk-A programmers were not-so-skilled with Smalltalk-B.
> … the point of a reproducible build is to verify that the binary i use, or that the package i use is based on the same source that i have.
I have been talking about how to reproduce a particular build, not how to verify.
From the same initial state, perform the same sequence of actions, implies arrive at the same final state. Reproducible.
"Retaining your old change logs gives you a record of all the changes you have made to the system. This will prove invaluable when you receive a new release of Smalltalk/V.
… In short, back up the image and change log together, and you shouldn't have any problems."
page 285 Smalltalk/V 286 Tutorial and Programming Handbook 1988
> If you're asking what multi-lingual benchmark suites offer good coverage - I don't know.
In which case, given: The target audience wonder "Which programming language is fastest?" :there doesn't seem to be support for your claim that: "Having more domain coverage is easier and more valuable…".
> Is it better than nothing? Maybe, but not by much…
== Not standardized. Language vendors used proprietary code to lock-in customers and that fragmented the skills base. Skilled Smalltalk-A programmers were not-so-skilled with Smalltalk-B.
== Not free as in beer.