On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:00 PM, Germán Arduino wrote: > 2011/4/20 Dale Henrichs <[email protected]>: >> >> It's just an added dimension of complexity ... not to mention the cost of >> converting existing development processes, tools, artifacts to the new >> system...it took Monticello nearly a decade to become commonly used:) >> >> I think that this is a problem that does need to be solved (along with >> others:) so I'm not claiming that "all is lost, we'll never be file-based" I >> just think it is a tough problem that would have been solved by now, if it >> was easy:) >> > > A thing I not understand is why we need to go "file-based" if we are > already object based (several steps ahead)?
The folks that would like to see Smalltalk be more file-based have very good points ... Smalltalk would be more accessible to other developers, it would be easier for folks to learn Smalltalk if they didn't have to learn new tools along with a new language, etc.... So it would be really nice if we could keep our object orientation while providing a development environment that was familiar to developers from other languages .... we'd have our cake and eat it too:) > > > >> Until then, long live SqueakSource3 and SmalltalkHub:) >> > > Sure! But, (I'm only asking) we couldn't using Git with objects? It's > only curiosity, not that I would like Git, eheh, I knew Github only > today! At the moment I don't think that a transition to to Git would be transparent ... If it were that easy, I would think that it would be done by now:). I'd love to be wrong:) Dale
