Sorry I do not have the time to discuss. Busy writing report. Our goal is to make sure that people can use Pharo to build real application. Of course we would love to be as big as ruby and have 1000 of contributors. So far this is not the case so … Still by focusing on key assets we are making progress.
Stef >> >>>> Every time I see smalltalkers forking away from established mainstream >>>> solutions/practices I hear a big noise inside my head. On the >>>> opposite, whenever I see stuff like the CI integrations, FileTree, >>>> standards compliance, and so on, I'm really happy. >> >>> Do you know when monticello was invented? >>> and working for real? >> >> Around 2004-2005 as far as I remember. And working for real at that >> very moment, I guess. >> >> Why? > > Presumably because it predates git :) But I think 2003 is the actual birth > year. > > But the counter argument is trivial: how many people use Monticello? > (At most, hundreds. In comparison to at least 10s of thousands using > git.) Does Monticello actually use any of the special syntax-awareness > it's supposed to bring to the table? (No.) > > But the counter-counter argument is "it's good enough". (I disagree, > but I accept the argument that it does work well enough to actually > get stuff done, even if code review in Smalltalk is currently way > harder than in Ruby or Clojure, the other languages in which I most > commonly program. And they're so easy to code review because being > git-friendly allows me to see diffs and discuss diffs and use all > manner of cool tools that hook into git.) > > frank > >> Regards! >> >> >> Esteban. >> >
