Thanks jimmie :) You summarize well some of my thoughts. Stef going back to talk to an image with one process and no ui and trying to get a repl so that I can debug our 3.2 mb image :).
Yes the way to bootstrapping is slow :) > 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 > >
