I have been using a DVCS since at least 2005 and live by it for Perl (as well as other things) development. It is frustrating for me to use anything else. Because I have to jump between tasks, and because I am so scatter brained, I need it in order to simply keep track of all my projects and the changes that I have made. A DVCS fits to my workflow no matter how I need to do my work.
However, though I am very new to Smalltalk and while I am used to the tools that I have been using for years I still do not feel compelled to use a DVCS that I am so used to. Monticello could use some improvements perhaps, but I currently do not see a compelling reason to change it for something else. I appreciate what an object system has to offer instead of just flat files. Things are radically different for me now. Instead of dealing with a combination of a RDBMS, Perl applications, and shell scripts I have a complete system with more than just a language (thanks Eliot for the clarity). All the time I am used to using UNIX commands, SQL commands, editor features just to do my work. With Smalltalk I have all of that with a consistent language that reduces all of the ways I need to consider to slice and dice the things I am looking to accomplish. And all of this in just an image file! I do still struggle hard with Smalltalk (it is so new and so radically different for me - yet the code is so much cleaner and easier when done right) but I still do not see a compelling reason to use Git for my development. I know this discussion tends to come up ever so often. What am I missing? Is it perhaps because I am coming from the outside in? If you use Git what benefit would you have by using binary files? Or if you were to use some sort of text file, what benefit would you have by removing them from the system in which they exist? Thanks! Scott Gibson On Apr 20, 2011, at 5:26 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > 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 -- Scott Gibson [email protected]
