Hi Andreas,
>Proposals like yours aren't new. In fact there are also complementary >proposals like "give up that strange syntax and introduce >curly braces...". >Combined that will lead to either C# or Java. I am not advocating any changes to the language. >From your ideas I only like the enhancements for Squeak's and Pharo's >interfacing to non Smalltalk libraries. >All others will only weaken Smalltalk's strengths (even if you don't realize >that yet). I definitely see strengths in the Smalltalk language. I just think it needs to be made accessible to a broader audience. >If you are not only developing web applications or server only applications >then you might want to have a look at Dolphin >Smalltalk in order to see a >decent Smalltalk IDE. >The free community edition lacks some of the tools (system browser and idea >space) but still you will get an idea of what is >possible. I am not really making a proposal and I'm not trying to influence Pharo/Smalltalk. I DO respect everyone's opinion. I am just discussing the things that I find difficult about using Smalltalk on a real world project. I don't know for sure, but maybe if comments like mine keep coming up, then some of them should be given more thought. It must be possible that some of them could be answered without changing Pharo/Smalltalk as a language. After all, there has to be a reason that more people don't use Smalltalk. I came to Pharo, because of the advertised focus on making a Smalltalk implementation that is more geared towards commercial applications. I am providing feedback that I feel directly targets that specific area. It's interesting to me how everyone seems to think that the IDE IS the language. I don't think that at all. I also don't think that there is any reason to get rid of the IDE. However, I don't see why there should be a problem with having some alternatives. Thanks, Gerry
