Hello Stef,
In the video he distinguishes and defines Simple and Easy.
I will not define them here. I will let the video speak for itself.
Easy is what a lot of languages are.
Simple is the goal. Simple Made Easy is the ultimate. :)
Simple ~= Easy
Easy ~= Simple
Simple is sometimes Easy
Easy is often not Simple
Easy and Simple are often used interchangeably when they shouldn't be.
It can be confusing.
The video is an hour. I would encourage anyone to watch it.
The video is not about Clojure a particular language, but is more
philosophical.
And by the way. I too would love to see Pharo Simple and Easy on your
list. :)
Or at least as Simple as possible.
Jimmie
On 11/3/2011 3:39 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
We are easy in debugging.
Now I would like to be easy in
C interaction
C embedding
UI building
File manipulation
Stef
Hello,
I watched a video presentation by Rich Hickey, the creator of Clojure, on
Simple Made Easy.
www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
It is a very interesting video. I don't necessarily agree with everything he
says. But I believe he makes some valuable distinctions between simple and easy.
Where are we in Pharo simple?
Where are we easy?
What can we do to move things from easy to simple?
I am not qualified to answer his challenge to object oriented languages. But I
feel that Smalltalk is the most functional OO language I've seen. And I don't
necessarily mean functional in the programming methodology sense, but I don't
rule it out either. I don't believe that C++ and Java will provide the best OO
or programming experience.
Watch the video.
I would love to hear some opinions from the community.
How can we move Pharo to be a better answer to Simple vs. Easy?
Thanks.
Jimmie
