Em 26/11/2010 16:25, Janko Mivšek < janko.miv...@eranova.si > escreveu: > On 26. 11. 2010 18:20, csra...@bol.com.br wrote: > Em 24/11/2010 > 11:50, Jan van de Sandt < jvdsa...@gmail.com > escreveu: > > >> A Smalltalk variant would use Smalltalk as the source language > >> instead of Java, the other parts of GWT can be reused. GWT is > >> open source (Apache 2.0 license). > > > I think we have first to evaluate to what audience/market are > > thinking of targeting this effort, then estimate the effort, in > > order to see if its worth it. > Specially we the web guys are very interested of such a beast, > because we need to develop more in more on the client side and in > JavaScript, which is a bit hard, because of our Smalltalk habits, > you know :)
I _do_. However, it is also a major trend "in this vital industry"¹ the increase in restrictions on the client side leading a lot of developers to switch from Javascript (client side computing) to PHP (server side computing), for an example of a popular site which ostensibly writes it in its home page, look at: http://www.quantitativeskills.com/sisa/² "Security" reasons plus less acquaintance with a newer technology would make this entry in the market very hard in today's environments. Perhaps what's _really_ needed is a good Javascript debugger? > Even more, Smalltalk on the client (Clamato way) can also solve one > of the main JavaScript problems: debugging on the client side. If we > can have near the same debugger on the client as we have in our > IDE's, well, this would be a huge step forward. For a very small community of Smalltalk developers, yes. What I rose earlier and maintain for discussion is if we have critical mass to reap the rewards of such an effort: we may end in some sort of the Armstrong's words backwards: "It was a huge step forward for Smalltalkers but a non movement forward at all for the majority of web developers." > > > If the attempt is a reinterpretation a Smalltalk base development > > environment would make a difference in the ecosystem we must check > > if we aren't flared by our preference of languages versus > > operational pragmatics. > > If the idea is to have such environment to the present (and sadly > > minute) community of Smalltalk developers, probably the effort > > would attend to a very small clientèle and the returns will be > > elusive and the project will end orphan. So, rephrasing my point above: except if we can produce those artifacts as a simple consequences of subclassing some objects in our environments and having a robust enough usable system, we rather consider carefully the use of our efforts in other areas where the fruits are hanging lower. -- Cesar Rabak [1] To whom may be missing: it is a pun with a phrase of one of the woodpecker shows where a line guard says these words when Woody installs himself in one of the telegraph poles.... :-D [2] Their arguments about mobile devices are also IMNSHO compelling.
