Ah I missed that, I stand corrected. Still not surprising. On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 7:27 PM Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > > On Sep 25, 2016, at 6:16 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > yes all I did is to open the sources file in a text editor and see which > one was the last line, that means it includes empty lines too. So 500k > sound normal to me. > > > > Personally as a user I rarely care about the size because I rarely care > to modify the existing image . For me its more important to have more > features that make my work easier. > > > > Also bare in mind in case of Ruby as with Python, that there is A LOT of > C involved which is a very verbose language and of course that includes VM > and low level parts that in the case of Pharo are not included in the image. > > I only counted the rb files, not the C ones (see the script) :) > > Doru > > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:46 PM Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > On Sep 25, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Totally agree with the slides apart from "Pharo is Small" , the syntax > may be but the whole environment last time I checked was 700k lines of code > > > which is huge for a dynamic language. Of course that is far from bad > at least for me, I love powerful environments over minimal solutions. > > > > > > Just for reference, Pharo 5 has: > > Smalltalk allClasses sumNumbers: #linesOfCode “515500" > > > > This is still a lot, but we should compare against a language + IDE + > compiler + collections + version management system + project dependency > system + several significant other libraries. This might turn out to be > quite small in the end :). > > > > But, one thing I would stress is that "Pharo is Uniform”. This is what > in the end makes it seem “Small”. > > > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > > > > You reminded me that I neeed to update my "Why Pharo" video :) > > > > > > Great work > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:43 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> > wrote: > > > Hi Stephan, > > > > > > > On 25 Sep 2016, at 13:07, Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I finally found the time to put the slides and narrative together > > > > > > > > https://medium.com/@stephan_32833/pharo-50c66685913c#.jeou548z7 > > > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > Great article, super cool slides, well done. I especially appreciate > how you guys managed to make so many good points in such a deceptively > simple and clear text — that takes a lot of work. > > > > > > Any chance you would like to submit it too 'Concerning Pharo' > publication [https://medium.com/concerning-pharo] ? Just send a > submission and I would love to add it. > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > www.feenk.com > > > > "If you can't say why something is relevant, > > it probably isn't." > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "There are no old things, there are only old ways of looking at them." > > > > > >
