Ok. Glad to help. In the thread I mentioned some of the specific difficulties I had implementing Grafoscopio's idea in Python[1] (in one word: fragmentation, of technologies and computing paradigms)
[1] http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscopio-idea-and-initial-progress.html Cheers, Offray On 07/10/17 10:17, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > Well I was refering to live coding itself, but you are correct, I have > not tried combining with literate coding hence why I was curious about > the difficulties you ecountered. I did not know that you focused so > much Grafoscopio on iterate coding. Thanks for enlighting me. > > I never implied that Python was easier in everything compared to > Pharo. Afterall kinda misses a huge chunk which is the IDE itself. > > There lies the challange of live coding as I initially said that we > each use it in a diffirent way. Thanks for the link also very > enlighting and it is what i wanted, an actual use case. > > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 5:49 PM Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas > <offray.l...@mutabit.com <mailto:offray.l...@mutabit.com>> wrote: > > > > On 06/10/17 21:00, Dimitris Chloupis wrote: > > Again very generic statements , and I see you refer to tools and > > libraries instead of OOP. We talking here Pharo vs Python on the > > language level because Python obviously does not come with an > IDE. But > > then Pharo does not come with literate programming tools or > libraries > > as well. > > No. We were talking about things "that Pharo can do that Python > can't do > or is most difficult". And, for me that includes the (community & > computing) environment provided by Pharo that allow you to go from and > idea to its implementation. In my case the idea was to provide an > experience which mix outlining (a la Leo Editor) with literate > computing > (a la Jupyter, IPython) [1]. Even if the original pieces where already > there in Python, mixing them was a nighmare (at least 3 years ago) and > Pharo was more empowering for going from idea to prototype and now > Pharo > has literate *computing* (not literate programming [2]) tools. > Grafoscopio is one of them. GT Documenter, in alpha now, is promising. > You can not have a single document for complex books in Jupyter. You > need to split/storage a single work in a "pile of files" metaphor. You > can, today, with Grafoscopio put a 300 pages long PDF in a single > notebook. So yes, there are things that are more complex in one > technology that in other (of course all computer languages are the > same > at enough distance, because all them are Turing complete and all > that stuff) > > [1] > > http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/on-deepness-and-complexity-of-ipython-documents.html > [2] > http://blog.fperez.org/2013/04/literate-computing-and-computational.html > > > > > I rather not go down the rabbit hole of third party libraries > because > > obviously I cannot participate in a discussion about libraries and > > areas of coding, I know nothing about. Plus Python has countless of > > libraries which makes a very longer discussion even if I was > familiar > > with them and Pharo has much less but still quite a lot of libraries > > as well. > > One of the advantages of being in a community is learning from others > experiences. You said that in your experience you have not found a > place > where Python were more difficult that in Pharo. I have shown that in > *my* experience there are. And agree, is unwise to discuss about > places > where one has no experience, when is better to learn from those > who have it. > > Cheers, > > Offray > >
