kilon.alios wrote > his dynabook is vaporware The Dynabook is a vision of what computing could be, not a product, and so can not be vaporware i.e. announced but not delivered. Looked at another way, you are using a Dynabook, since Smalltalk was an iteration of an attempt to implement of this vision.
kilon.alios wrote > "Why fight them , when you can join them?" The problem is that "them" = "a pile of code so complicated that it's beyond the ability of a single human being to understand". When you make a choice to use [ GNU/Linux | OS X | Windows ] + "suite of applications that are so cool I can't live without", you end up with LOC equivalent to the entire Library of Congress, impossible to understand, and requiring countless context switches for all the languages and technologies involved. After spending the time to dig into this mess in a few places where you want to customize, you are lucky if you have any energy left over to create whatever your vision originally was, for which the computer seemed like the perfect tool. kilon.alios wrote > So now I am exploring the concept of how Pharo can control all these apps > without me having to reimplement these apps in Pharo which is just an > insane amount of work to code and maintain Of course this is better than nothing ;) It's a great way to fast-forward to the system of our dreams - make it work, then make it right. And at the same time I think it's important to remember that Smalltalk exists as a reaction to the unworkability of this software we are plugging into, and that the dream is still to see it all replaced, and then to see Smalltalk itself replaced by Frank or whatever the next distillation is of "what a computer really is". My 2c... Obviously my recovery is not going well and idealism has crept back in ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Can-Pharo-meet-all-your-computing-needs-tp4774250p4774468.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
