> On 24 Apr 2015, at 08:41, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: > > I understand the point of marcus but still it is unclear why certain tools > should be in and not others. > Now I would prefer that we have a process that > > 1 := take a miniimage AND load the tools > check that we can unload them (just to check) > and only then declare > > pharo := 1. > > Now we will face the problem of ok we do a change and it touches such > loaded tools (see the other thread) > Read the Pharo vision paper.
we will have it. I’m slowly (very slowly) working on that. > > Stef > > > Le 23/4/15 10:53, Yuriy Tymchuk a écrit : >> I totally agree with Stef that we should be able to do a rock solid setup of >> what tools we want to use in our everyday image. >> >> But on the other hand we have to design what Pharo is. Because we can even >> go Ruby style and say that debugger is not a part of the main system, but I >> see that our strength is to provide people with ultimate tools for >> development (although we cannot put everything inside). And I think that >> dependency browser is important and I will continue to convince people that >> quality of code is important and that we should use quality tools in our >> daily work. Maybe now QualityAssistant is not mature enough, but at some >> point it will be :). >> >> Cheers. >> Uko >> >> >> P.S. at the moment we are loosing competition to JetBrains tools because >> they give you live feedback about code critics. >> >> >>> On 23 Apr 2015, at 09:04, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 23/4/15 09:05, Marcus Denker a écrit : >>>> I do not understand how “having a modular tool in the image ” (that does >>>> not add dependencies to anything) >>>> makes the system less modular. >>> Then why the dependency Browser was not integrated? Why roassal for drawing >>> dependencies >>> and other aspects of the system? Because dependency browser as well as >>> roassal are really useful, >>> well packaged, What about pillar? Because it would be cool to have >>> beautiful class comments in the future. The point is how and in which >>> process. >>> In addition what are the criteria? Feelings or criteria? Oh this tool is >>> cool but this one less cool. >>> Strange for scientific people no? >>> I think that we should have a building process that load tools. >>> We will not be able to put everything in the image: >>> Did you look at the dependencies between RB, nautilus, history, >>> EyeInspector? >>> I did because it was getting the mess. My energy is cheap and infinite so I >>> can spend 8 hours >>> fixing configurations that nobody use or look at. But you see this period >>> is ***over***. >>> >>>>> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about >>>>> modularity. >>>>> >>>>> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give >>>>> me good indication >>>>> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think >>>>> that I'm emotional >>>>> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>>>> >>>> You always directly go and argue by “I am now sad” purely emotional level. >>>> This is not good. >>> Read what you want to read. But my energy in neither cheap nor infinite >>> anymore. >>> This is not a feeling but just a mere fact. >>> >>>> >>>> Marcus >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > >
