That is winning for many. Dialectical end-state is language-mandated style (no style degrees of freedom in syntax): http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/07/coding-style-as-failure-of-language_21.html …
-
-
I think we disagree on Smalltalk's strengths being the use of an image-based format to store programs, then.
-
To me Smalltalk's strengths are much more in the language's semantics and integrated set of reflective tooling w/ immediate feedback.
-
I'm a fan of those. Ruby has a good amount of the language level semantics. Someone should build a class browser for ruby!
-
IMHO lexical scoping at the top level isn't very compatible with the kind of editors Smalltalk had.
-
Why's that?
-
"integrated set of reflective tooling with immediate feedback" doesn't seem to depend on this very much?
-
Unless your scope is first-class and names there late-bound, you can't change it without VM hacks (e.g.: what Chrome debugger does)
-
Ruby `binding` and hacks like Binding.of_caller get you there.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
None of the the Smalltalk systems designed for enterprise use depended upon source code stored in the image 1/
-
(even the original Xerox Smalltalk-80 release externally stored the user’s source code in a file) 2/
-
It's problematic for Enterprise Smalltalk to work differently than littleco Smalltalk. Esp when ppl loved the image for deployment.
-
It didn’t work differently. There still was an image and browser that work as expected. 1/
-
It just formalized the management of the source code that had always been there and extended tools for team oriented work.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Probably. But I'm not waiting for it
-
With
@pharoproject we are of course 20 years later, but that is definitely part of our roadmap. We have remote image tools working
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.