> For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
> developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.
Actually, .Net has. It's an improvement, but ST is still better. :-)
.Net has the embarrassment of riches. Confusing riches. .Net has a lot of
effort put in connectivity between disparate organizations of ideas, but
could benefit from a better single unifying idea, which one of ST's
strengths.
Victor
==================================
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Swartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ron Jeffries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [XP] Bowling for Smalltalk
>
>
> Sunday, December 26, 2004, 6:12:25 AM, Ron Jeffries wrote:
>
>
> >> I have read all the arguments for dynamic typing and against dynamic
> >> typing and agree with them all - although I think they are a liitle
> >> over-stated. But no-one ever seems to touch on what I see as the
biggest
> >> weakness of dynamic typing. When I learned Ruby, I had to keep
switching
> >> to the manual to find a class or a method. I have become so accustomed
> >> to the magic that IntelliJ works that when I use any other
> >> language/editor it is like going back into the old days. Most of
> >> IntelliJ's tricks make heavy use of Java's typing and I don't know how
> >> they would be possible in a dynamic language. I learned Smalltalk in
> >> squeak and found the browser very hard to work with - maybe I should
try
> >> a more modern browser ?
>
> > I spoke to this in a reply to a reply: I do like the intellisense or
> > equivalent capability, where the system pops up a list of what one
> > might be talking about. In Smalltalk one gets that same information
> > a different way, by opening a browser on the class in question.
> > That's still less helpful, I'd grant. I think I prefer Smalltalk
> > because of the other help it gives: the ready access to browsers,
> > the incremental compilation and coding in the debugger, and the
> > clarity yet compactness of the language itself. YMMV, of course.
>
> When I walk around the office (and when I program myself), you
> can tell which pairs are working in Smalltalk and which ones
> are working in Java from a pretty good distance, because the
> Smalltalk developers always have multiple windows open. The
> Java folks generally seem constrained to a single box on the
> screen.
>
> This difference predates the cool recent additions such as
> Intellisense, and dates back to when C++ and Smalltalk were
> the dominant OO languages.
>
> For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
> developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.
>
>
> --
>
> Doug Swartz
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
