Great talk. Nicolas
2011/11/3 Jimmie Houchin <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
