Igor, as usual your true object-oriented thinking helps us see a better path...
We need a customized UI interaction for Smalltalk, instead of asking for TEXT editors devised for a different setup. What's missing is a Smalltalk method shape(morph, etc...), highly customized for editing/navigating statements written in the Smalltalk syntax. ( unless you want to code the methods using the workspace.....) We can still preserve cmd-c for copy, and cmd-v for paste...IMO it's not about inventing a new set of keyboard shortcuts, but more about manipulating objects at the right level of abstraction. Saludos, Fernando On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 August 2012 01:19, Eliot Miranda <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> (a bit orthogonal) >>> i don't understand why we cannot have own, consistent set which is good >>> for us? >>> vim, emacs.. >> >> >> better use sets which are already extremely familiar than invent yet another >> set. to those of us who use these editors (and we are legion) these sets >> have long become almost subconscious to use. >> > > i know that.. i also came to squeak from outside.. > but as we say in Ukraine: don't enter others sanctuary with own > code(set of rules). > >>> why this is so important ? Those editors were not written for editing >>> smalltalk code in mind.. >>> they are best suited for big, hundreds lines of code, files.. >> >> >> they're the two most popular editors of their type. lots of people use them >> for other languages without IDE support. They provide convenient power >> features such as pattern replacement. Not often I find myself filing out >> Smalltalk code and editing it with vim (sadly I've never learned emacs). >> > me too.. i never learned emacs. So, maybe i am completely ignorant and can't > see > why it is so important to have it there.. But then, i don't > understand, why most of editors i know > never had emacs/vim key bindings as option? Are they completely stupid? Huh? > > So, you know, if we follow that logic.. hey we don't have a unix command > line.. > so maybe we should add an option: either workspace or command line? > and then introduce nice terminal emulation with prompt, users and .bashrc .. > ahh.. what the hell.. lets replicate whole unix environment.. imagine > how many happy users will join us then! > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >
