Hi Jimmie, Good stuff!! Thanks so much for taking the time to read and reply to my post. Any and all feedback is welcome and appreciated.
Thanks Again, Gerry -----Original Message----- > From: "Jimmie Houchin" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: 01/15/12 19:44 > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] New IDE alternative (was Misc. newbie questions) > > On 1/15/2012 6:55 AM, Gerry Weaver wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > >> I am not comfortable with the idea to write parts of an application in > >> different languages. > >> Typically the disadvantages overweigh the advantages to do so as you > >> would have different languages and systems to master and update. > >> Interoperability with other systems and languages should be easy and > >> Squeak/Pharo are still lacking in this area. This is well known and > >> hopefully there will be some improvements in the future. > > > > I guess I would have to disagree with you here. Most of the editors and > > IDEs of other languages are not maintained by the language proper. There > > are many editors and IDEs that support many languages in addition to the > > one they are written in. I think the benefits of using a full featured > > GUI toolkit to create an IDE would be significant. > > And I have to disagree with you here. You lack the imagination and > knowledge to understand the significant advantage of having a single > language, environment and toolset that Smalltalk provides. > > >> Planning to give up on parts like GUI is a bad idea in my opinion. > >> Smalltalk would be even more niche than it is now. I want to be able to > >> build complete applications without the need to build parts in another > >> language. > > > > In theory I would agree with you. However, I wasn't able to come up with > > an application scenario where the Pharo GUI would work. Either the > > widget set and OS integration are too limited or performance is a > > problem. For example, the last several applications I have done needed > > to display PDF files. I have done a little testing with Pharo and I'm > > sorry to say the results were not very encouraging. The problem I think > > is one of limited resources. I think that maybe trimming some things > > would render more progress on the core. Perhaps a good and complete > > binding to one of the current GUI toolkits would be easier to maintain. > > You would also get the instant advantage of everything the toolkit had > > to offer (including performance). A more robust FFI would inevitably be > > realized as a result. > > Again, I think you lack imagination. You are stuck in box built by all > your previous tools and experience. And from your box you are trying to > look at Smalltalk and trying to shape it to your experience and thusly > declaring its deficiencies. This does not make Smalltalk wrong. > > Most of us here like the Smalltalk experience. We like the language. We > like the image. Are there issues that we would like to overcome? Of > course. Outside of interfacing with the outside world being made easier, > I don't think you are really addressing those issues. Instead, your are > creating issues we don't have. And many of us find many things we can do > living in our world and slowly working on what our world can access. > > If you want to mold Pharo into the image that you think it should be. > Please feel free to do so. It is open source. Fork it and make it so. We > would even help where we are able. But you are going outside of the > vision and worldview of this community and most any Smalltalk community. > > Cincom, Gemstone, or any of the other commercial Smalltalks have > reasonable success despite all the deficiencies you have discovered. > > And if you decide that Smalltalk doesn't fit your worldview. That is ok. > Find the tool that fits you. Be productive with it. And if you want to > create what you think is a better way with what you learn from > Smalltalk. Go for it. > > As far as GUI. I like ours. I think it can be improved greatly. But I > like access to it as part of my environment. > > What is a standard UI? Who set this standard? Why is QT standard? or > WxWidgets or ...? Look at the most used apps out there. Are they using > native standard UI? I don't think so. iTunes is a hugely used app. Is it > standard UI? No. Apple Mail? Safari? Windows Media player? No these > things are used by most of the computing world and they don't even use > the normal standard native UI of their platform. And they are all ugly. > > Is Facebook standard? Web apps are used all the time. > > Who says what is standard. And is what is standard today, what we should > strive for? Or can we work towards a better future. > > I use all kinds of applications which do not meet your standard of being > a native standard UI. But I use them. Why? Because they provide the > abilities to do what I want or need. Not because they meet any > particular standards as defined by nameless potentially clueless people. > > So more than meeting any particularly defined standard of UI, what is > required is than an application be compelling. If it is not, then no > matter how standards compliant it will meet with little receptiveness. > > Is Eclipse, Netbeans, Vi, Emacs standard. Windows or Mac? If Windows, > XP, Vista, 7, 8? What is standard on Linux? KDE, Gnome, Unity, pick your > favorite WM. So why is it your developers get to use non-standard tools, > (Emacs, Vi), or define then standard as being what they use? > > There are lots of applications where the UI is almost never standard by > anyone's definition. In my world financial investment apps. Education > apps, games, ... > > This argument passes no reasonable standard. > > >> Especially having the IDE in Smalltalk itself and thus being able to > >> inspect and debug and modify everything is a big advantage over any IDE > >> in a different language. > > > >> I don't understand why the IDE needs to be in the image/language to do > >> that. > >> All Smalltalk implementations have shortcomings in some areas. There > >> are a multitude of reasons for it, be it commercially > >> (greater estimated expenses than earnings from it) or just lack of > >> capacity. Smalltalk users are rare these days and the community is > >> split because of different implementations and interests. For me, Pharo > >> is on a good way to take the Smalltalk language into a better > >> ecosystem. But for the moment Dolphin Smalltalk is my preferred system > >> because it's relatively cheap and has only few known bugs. In my eyes > >> it deserves a bigger community and better commercial success. But I > >> guess that's what every Smalltalker thinks about his preferred > >> Smalltalk system... > > > > Dolphin seems to be one of the better implementations, but the problem > > with Dolphin is Windows. All of the projects on my radar right now are > > moving applications away from Windows to Mac/Linux (mostly Mac). > > So, in this statement, by definition you are moving from the most > standard defined UI to lesser standard UIs. Linux is all over the map. > > The above are simply my opinions and I make no express statements that > anyone else in the Pharo community agrees with them. > > Personally I am all for improving the Pharo worlds and making more > things accessible within that world. Not necessarily becoming like the > world outside of Pharo/Smalltalk. If I want that world, it is already there. > > I would also presume that by your exploration of our little world, which > by the way is 30+ years old, that you have sufficient deficiencies in > the world you come from to explore what else is available. > > Jimmie
