Personally I think the direction Moose is going is the right one, with visualising code for understanding its overall structure. I do think however that a system can help a user understand is an AI system, not in the strict sense of the word but a system that can understand user needs and act accordingly. Something like the Star Trek computer, where you can talk to a computer and reply back. Coding was great so far but it has become too complicated for mere humans to manage. So I think if Pharo is the future then we need to focus more and invest more on intelligent software, not software that is build in intelligent way but rather a software that can evolve and react to user's needs. This wont be easy or a short term goal.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> wrote: > Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote > > Open source means nothing if you cannot read the code, do not understand > > it, cannot change it - easily. > > Yes!!! This is why just open sourcing a bad idea like an OS (see GNU/Linux) > doesn't cut it. Even though theoretically you have access to the whole > system, you can judge the practicality of doing so by looking at how few > people actually do so. Compare that with Smalltalk, where it seems a rarity > to find someone who /doesn't/ take advantage of modifying the core (granted > Smalltalkers are somewhat self-selected). The system must be distilled down > and unified until it is easily understandable and changeable by a single > person. We'll know we're there when we have the equivalent functionality of > "an OS + Standard Suite of Common Applications" in which it is commonplace > for users to dig down and modify any level. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Can-Pharo-meet-all-your-computing-needs-tp4774250p4774868.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
