Hi Stef, On 1 Jan 2012, at 09:14, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 2012, at 1:24 AM, Tudor Girba wrote: >> >>> I do not like the magic of the block and arguments >> >> There really is little magic. In fact, it is about the same as the magic of >> Morphic calling selectors with arguments. > > except that it changes the perception of blocks arguments and usage. I do not understand. >>> Still I do not see how we extend browsers. We discussed that during the PhD >>> meal at bern with lukas >>> and I'm still not convinced. >> >> I am not sure what you are referring to. > > How I can create a subclass and customize. Subclass of what? Perhaps we should just set a case study and I try to show something. But first, I would need to understand what the concern is. Could you help me with it? >> Please understand that this debate started because you said it's sad that >> Alex would choose to work on top of Glamour for the Metacello browser. I >> simply would like to understand why you think it's so. To me, there does not >> seem to be a strong argument. > > Because if alex can build a model and a little UI for basic image and wrap it > with a better UI for glamouroust then > we all win. Now if there is no UI for basic then the people like me that are > always coding in alpha and working a lot > with metacello will get zero benefit. > > I think that the plan is the following: > - make the best IDE you can and that the people use it like hell > - make sure that you force pharo to always load it > - for the moment we are focusing on cleaning below. Now the challenge > is that we need tools too. Sounds ok :). It's much better than the "sad" remark :). But, I thought the whole idea of one Pharo image was to get some decent tools in there for the benefit of the infrastructural work as well. Am I wrong? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"
