On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Gerry Weaver <[email protected]> wrote:
> First, let me apologize for starting the Delphi thing. I only mentioned it > as an example IDE layout. I was not trying to say that the internal > workings of it were good, bad, or indifferent. > I think there's a lot to be learned there but, of course, I would. >>1. I believe Smalltalk's main strength is the language and it's library. Language, yes. Library? Seems unlikely. The core libraries are cool but overall the efforts of more popular languages positively dwarf ST's. >> I don't think the image concept works in the current world. I realize there are many folks who would argue this to death, but the fact is that it hinders adoption. I believe it would be better to focus on a robust full featured library and unload the maintenance of the image based environment. I would think of Smalltalk as a Java alternative. Java was alternative to Smalltalk. The image concept works, it's just too murky. >>3. I think Smalltalk should probably forget about the desktop gui completely. There are so many good tools to build gui interfaces these days that it would take a huge effort to match even half of the functionality and performance they provide. Smalltalk should focus on rich web interfaces instead. The gui code and tools are stealing valuable resources from development. Open Source: People do what they want to do. Even if you stopped people from doing GUIs, they wouldn't necessarily shift to doing what you want. >>4. Developing in Smalltalk should be just like any other high level language. Then why have it? Just for the syntax? >>It should have a REPL type interface Workspace/Transcript? ===Blake===
