On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu>: > > >> On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not >> really simple. >> > >> > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding >> experience. Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things >> that Pharo / Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts >> associated with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I >> don't care about languages that theoretically are great. >> > >> > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe >> because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am >> not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like >> an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. >> But I don't stop learning . >> > >> > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more >> difficult to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on >> Smalltalk seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference >> documentation and I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading >> code is very very very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read >> code, additionally I don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no >> comments. >> > Great first part of your comment Kilon. Yes, the language is far simpler, but the libraries, oh the libraries, and the doc. But doc is not necessarily the problem. Examples can be good. There needs to be lots of effort put into tutorials, examples, etc. But I have to say that reading code can be a joy, and really educational, even if with no comments, _provided_ it is well-written. That's one of the things that's really special about SMalltalk, support for reading, both in the syntax and in the tools (senders, implementors, class comments). Get over your antipathy and read as much as you can. Its a good route to mastery. > >> Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. >> > +1 > >> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html >> >> First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the >> creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >> >> >> >> Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any >> kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a >> pretty low level - that is really amazing. >> >> Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a key >> skill. >> >> Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or written >> in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything documented. >> And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. >> >> But we are moving forward in the right direction. >> >> > Yep, I forgot that I learned with Smalltalk/V and st80... I think I had > read all the code base after two or three years, blue book included. > Learning with Squeak/Pharo certainly put the hurdle a bit high... I don't > think I will ever read the whole... > I'd say maybe try and teach with Cuis? > Good idea. Learning with Smalltalk-80 V2 was such a joy. You could read and understand everything. It led to a feeling of mastery. Being able to hack the compiler, modify tools, etc. Lovely. Small is beautiful. > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks >> nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I >> know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the >> syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to >> read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate >> reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see >> how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless >> he does not real understand what he learned. >> > >> > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and >> the Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at >> #emacs in IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full >> blown language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" >> , "No its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is >> history. >> > >> > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language >> I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of >> documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think >> however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and >> me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and >> directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in >> this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing >> is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest >> way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero >> delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I >> would be around as long as it follows them. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chae...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met >> it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many >> problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutions… and >> Smalltalk had them all. >> > >> > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I >> see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 – 95% of them) >> Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's >> how it is. >> > >> > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says >> "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is >> hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's >> message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) >> > >> > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on >> few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), >> has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). >> Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet >> it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day >> by day, for many years… they become easier. You just don't feel complexity >> anymore. It's still there, and it still hinders… but you don't see that >> anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be >> uncomfortable, strange… and hard. I think that's why most students do not >> embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strange… so I can >> admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) >> > >> > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. >> simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. …They can be >> easily googled if need be. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > Dennis Schetinin >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chae...@gmail.com>: >> > >> > Simple ~= Easy. >> > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy >> (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). >> > >> > >> > >> > Intersting... >> > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I >> would have thought the exact contrary... >> > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? >> > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler >> than Smalltalk? >> > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is >> less than difference to Smalltalk? >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > Dennis Schetinin >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: >> > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake >> oil marketing" to me. >> > >> > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other >> programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be >> further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo >> is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have >> to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that >> Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you >> need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will >> be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say >> python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this >> simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may >> come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, >> but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. >> > >> > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and >> demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly >> better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will >> benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> >> wrote: >> > Now, who is creative enough to add “dynamic array” (one with curly >> braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: >> > >> > exampleWithNumber: x >> > | y | >> > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. >> > y := self size + super size. >> > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) >> > do: [ :each | >> > Transcript show: (each class name); >> > show: ' ']. >> > ^x < y >> > >> > >> > >> > Uko >> > >> > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph >> Johnson. >> >> >> >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >> >> >> >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >> >> >> >> Oscar >> >> >> >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymc...@me.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I guess it’s here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >> >>> >> >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. >> It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers >> and also as some king of souvenir. >> >>> >> >>> Uko >> >>> >> >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real >> postcard. >> >>>> >> >>>> Stef >> >>>> >> >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >> >>>>> Hi guys, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was >> there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really >> interesting. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Uko >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > -- best, Eliot
