(Another topic I can't miss:)
That's I've tried to explain during ESUG 2011: classic + mockist TDD (which
is very similar if not identical to BDD) provides a lot of benefits
including solid process, flexible design… and free documentation of course.
"Seamless" TDD is really cheap and very efficien
kilon alios wrote
> Pharo has zero official reference documentation
Well Pharo By Example and Deep into Pharo are close. IMHO, we've chosen to
pour as many of our limited resources as possible into shrinking and
redesigning the system into something one person can master, rather than
thoroughly do
I am not debating well written code. Readable code must always be the No 1
priority . The questions is can you really rely on it ? Because in the end
design decisions will be made , or people will not agree on what "beautiful
code" really is. So I think aim for beautiful code, expect ugly code, be
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe :
>
>
>> On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not
>> really simple.
2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe :
>
> On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios wrote:
>
> > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not
> really simple.
> >
> > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience.
> Maybe if I stay arou
On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios wrote:
> I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not really
> simple.
>
> So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience.
> Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo /
>
I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not
really simple.
So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience.
Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo /
Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts as
As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met it
many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many
problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutions… and
Smalltalk had them all.
But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now,
As I started Smalltalk with Pharo 1.3, I may resonate with Dennis point of
view.
Simple in syntax but not easy indeed.
There are ways to do things and smart ways that require a while to sink in.
Basically, it turned my mind upside down and I realised that a lot of
things are easier to do in Smal
2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin :
> Simple ~= Easy.
> Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy
> (to understand and master, especially after other PLs).
>
>
> Intersting...
I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would
have thou
Simple ~= Easy.
Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy (to
understand and master, especially after other PLs).
--
Best regards,
Dennis Schetinin
2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios :
> personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 12:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk
wrote:
> Now, who is creative enough to add “dynamic array” (one with curly braces)
> and temporaries in a block to the original thing:
>
Don't forget a block array literal, a pragma, a long binary selector and
thisContext. Personally I don't like
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:04, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> It’s hard for me to agree with you. Pharo’s compact syntax is one of main
> features for me. Because in all other languages there was a time when I
> encountered some unknown constructs even after a year of usage. In Pharo you
> just have to le
I think that this is an issue of auto changing quotes to open and close. And
something was just copied :)
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:55, Nicolai Hess wrote:
>
> 2014-06-17 10:07 GMT+02:00 Damien Cassou :
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> > Now, who is creative enough to add
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Nicolai Hess wrote:
> Why are there different single quote characters?
>
> (`a´ in the literal array and ` ` by the Trascript show)
>
bug in the slide, thank you :-)
--
Damien Cassou
http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from
2014-06-17 10:07 GMT+02:00 Damien Cassou :
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk
> wrote:
> > Now, who is creative enough to add "dynamic array" (one with curly
> braces)
> > and temporaries in a block to the original thing:
>
>
> the postcard on our Pharo slides has a bit more (see sl
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:07, Damien Cassou wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
>> Now, who is creative enough to add "dynamic array" (one with curly braces)
>> and temporaries in a block to the original thing:
>
>
> the postcard on our Pharo slides has a bit more (see
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> Now, who is creative enough to add "dynamic array" (one with curly braces)
> and temporaries in a block to the original thing:
the postcard on our Pharo slides has a bit more (see slide 34):
http://www.slideshare.net/pharoproject/pharo-t
It’s hard for me to agree with you. Pharo’s compact syntax is one of main
features for me. Because in all other languages there was a time when I
encountered some unknown constructs even after a year of usage. In Pharo you
just have to learn syntax from postcard, and then if you want to know how
personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake oil
marketing" to me.
It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other programming
languages as a programming language while nothing can be further from the
truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo
Now, who is creative enough to add “dynamic array” (one with curly braces) and
temporaries in a block to the original thing:
exampleWithNumber: x
| y |
true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt].
y := self size + super size.
#($a #a "a" 1 1.0)
do: [ :each |
Thank you, this is interesting
Uko
On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:
>
> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph Johnson.
>
> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard
>
> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original sour
I made a little cheat sheet package from
http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~philippeback/HOExtras/packages/HOCheatSheet
"A HOCheatSheet is a set of useful things to remember
See Class Side.
Using content from Chris Rathman / chrisr...@aol.com"
Obviously not a postcard :-)
Phil
On Mon, Jun 16, 20
I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph Johnson.
http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard
Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source.
Oscar
On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
> I guess it’s here: http://files.pharo
I guess it’s here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf
I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. It can
work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers and also as
some king of souvenir.
Uko
On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo wrot
you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real postcard.
Stef
On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote:
Hi guys,
we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was there any
real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really interesting.
Uko
26 matches
Mail list logo
