isr wrote > I'm a long-time lurker on this list, and still more of an > intermediate-squeaker (is that a word?) rather than pharo (although I > have used this off and on since pharo-5), so I feel like a bit of an > imposter jumping into this thread (long-time lisper).
Like you, I am primarily a lurker in the Pharo lists. Some of your comments below I agree with and some I don't. I hope can explain clearly enough why I don't. I've been fortunate enough to work in Smalltalk exclusively since late 1991. Each year that goes by sees me gain a new and deeper understanding. Things I thought I new well turn out to have much more to them than I previously thought, even after multiple "rinse and repeat" cycles. > That said, and without wishing to ruffle any feathers nor cause any > rancour (if I do, I apologise), may I humbly disagree with some of the > opinions mentioned by some certainly more accomplished Smalltalkers > than me. > > Sven said: >> Everybody is of course totally free to do whatever they want, but really, >> why the hell would you want to do that ? >> You lose so much by doing that, I do not even know where to start. >> A big part of what makes Pharo (or any Smalltalk) special is the IDE >> written in itself. > > Esteban said: >> Honestly, Pharo without the environment (and the “live objects” approach) >> is just another dynamic language without much interest. > > There's a distinction between "how you enter source code" and "the > full live object environment" paradigm. > > No matter how you setup your smalltalk, at some point, you have to > talk to your system. Tell it to subclass Object because I want to add > a new class. Or add a new method to an existing class. Or just execute > this code right now, as is (Workspace/Playground). Etc, etc. The "system" isn't an object. It is a collaborative network of objects. You don't tell the /system/ to subclass Object, you tell /Object/ to define the subclass. To help provide a more complete context, let's go back to the beginning to what Goldberg and Robson said in their preface to /Smalltalk-80 The Language and Its Implementation/. "Smalltalk is designed so that every component in the system that is accessible to the user can be presented in a meaningful way for observation and manipulation." As developers, we are users and subject to the same goals and ambitions. Observation for us is navigating the code to understand while manipulation for us is producing new code (or changed code). But, keep in mind that the word manipulation means a lot more than just writing. > There are numerous text editor widgets sprinkled throughout > squeak/cuis/pharo's set of "tools" which enable you to do exactly that > - talk to the system. > > These various editor widgets distinguish themselves slightly by > binding Self to something convenient (in the browser, for example), > but other than that - they're just text widgets. > > The magic only happens once you take the text, and tell the system to > **do something with it**. Save, Do-it, print-it, etc. > > Up to that point, its just text. Dumb, simple, plain text. That's only true because you have chosen it to be. And that is the crux of this whole discussion. Dead bits are useless. Smalltalk is about live objects. (As I said, it took me a long time to really, deeply understand that. And I still see someone come along and prove me wrong. Wrong in the sense that I didn't understand it nearly as well as I thought. Someone shows the world an idea and my understanding takes an octave jump.) > So, in a real sense, does it matter where you enter that dumb, simple, > plain text? Yes, it does matter. When every keystroke changes the meaning of that "dumb, simple, plain text", yes, it matters. There are Smalltalk text editors that insert annotations into the text being presented to communicate information to you, from as simple as indicating a declared variable is unused or an expression references an undefined variable, to more complex concepts. There are Smalltalk editors that know what potential receivers implement selectors and variables (including globally accessible objects) matching what you have typed so far and can offer you suggestions, including spelling corrections, as you type. > As long as there is an immediate, simple, failsafe way to sending that > text to the system to "do something with me", then you still have the > same live environment. Surely? How can it be? Live, yes, for some definition of live. But, lively? Not so. (The people at feenk.com have shown an entirely new level of liveliness that I find simply fascinating. Each new thing rings with an echo of "What will they think of next?" coupled with "I can't wait to see what they think of next!".) > At that point, it doesn't matter (from the point of view of having a > "live system") whether the dumb, simple, plain text was initially > entered, from keyboard to screen, via the smalltalk process or another > external process. > > One can certainly argue that simple fileouts, editing, and filingin is > too clunky a process. But, for example, having a fuse filesystem > exporting the live contents of the class hierarchy: > > - every time you read "/Class-as-Dir/Method-as-file", the current > source is queried from the live smalltalk system > > - every time you write to that file the smalltalk system is updated > > Surely this would keep much of the same "liveness-in-spirit"? With the > added advantages of: > > - spreading a little of the cpu burden around the various cores > (although this isn't really a cpu-intensive task anyway, but this > might apply more if we had out-of-image graphical inspectors which > also communicated via fuse) > > - taking advantage of the **vastly** more advanced text editing > widgets available outside of pharo > > Certainly, this is what Craig Latta webdav system is trying to get at. > I think its an interesting area to explore, and does not in any way > distract from "liveness" or "smalltalk'iness". > > Ok, rant over :) > > > -- > Regards, > Imran Sher Rafique > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 05:54, Sven Van Caekenberghe < > sven@ > > wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 24 Jan 2019, at 12:10, Dimitris Chloupis < > kilon.alios@ > > wrote: >> > >> > Often we have users of emacs and vim that request a way to use their >> favorite shortcuts or features. Some even ask "Would not be nice if I >> could use my favorite code editor with Pharo ?" >> > >> > Actually not only you can do it, its also very easy. So the following >> video tutorial explains in the first 3 minutes how to do this and then >> spends another 10 min talking about how this could be automated to be >> completely automatic and instantaneous. >> > >> > https://youtu.be/3YfRhDafIxs >> >> Everybody is of course totally free to do whatever they want, but really, >> why the hell would you want to do that ? >> >> You lose so much by doing that, I do not even know where to start. >> >> A big part of what makes Pharo (or any Smalltalk) special is the IDE >> written in itself. >> >> Editing a .st file has always been possible, it is masochism. >> >> There is for example https://github.com/dmatveev/shampoo-emacs which >> already makes a bit more sense (but even then). >> >> Really, why do you think all these big IDE environments exist in the >> first place ? >> >> Sven >> >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
