201–210 of 236 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which apparently does nothing.
I got 1405006117752879898543142606244511569936384000000000 on my command line after running those commands.
How many would be able to say that `Hello, world` was correct?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the Smalltalk and apparently now the Pharo people don't seem to understand is that the entire OS is the IDE, "the image". My OS and all of its rules, tools and configuration, the UNIX philosophy, the POSIX standard, all of its history and convention: _that_ is my dev environment and it's as LIVE as anything can be. Not some one-off unicorn IDE - no matter how awesome it is, sorry guys. My entire toolchain in all…
> Without the UNIX philosophy none of this would even get off the ground. So the UNIX philosophy was the only possible way computing could have gone to result in a diverse set of systems that communicate with each other? Is there some sort of CS proof of this claim? Or was it just how history played out? > For some reason some people think programming is hard because you have to create some classes and struggle with…
But still, yeah.
> So the UNIX philosophy was the only possible way computing could have gone to result in a diverse set of systems that communicate with each other?
I don't know and it is not relevant. If you're so inclined you may come up with another paradigm. Anyway, Pharo in particular is not such a paradigm, it's a fancy tool. Fancy, but a tool and it should behave as such and should co-operate, and it doesn't and that makes me very, very, very angry. And upset. And hurt. :-)
> Alan Kay and some others have thought programming would be more productive if it took place at a higher level than manipulating text and files.
I understand, but saying "text manipulation" is quite derogatory. It is _symbol manipulation_, that is what we are doing. The underlying mechanisms of the OS, filesystem and various media are irrelevant. What if I don't work with files, but "symbol maps" or whatever the F* some academic can come up with in his own custom fancy GUI tool. It doesn't change one bit. I still have to manipulate symbols and it still needs to be encoded somewhere. Increases on the fancy-dimension mean decreases on the is-robust-and-useful-in-a-general-way-dimension, not to mention the works-at-all-in-20-years-dimension.
Text files are just low common denominators. They are simple to understand and work well, not only across space, but more importantly, time as well.
> Well, ask someone with a lot of VB or Smalltalk experience how much the environment slows them down in comparison. Because you often hear the opposite.
I know, but that's not the point. I'm not saying Pharo is bad at what it does, being an excellent IDE. It's wonderful. I'm opposed to the ideology of throwing away all UNIX lessons and integrating everything into one God-system. I guess I've upset not only the Smalltalk, but now also the Windows people. Sorry.
> I guess debuggers, refactoring and class browsers aren't useful, then.
These are aids, typically implemented graphically, but not always - Vim has excellent autocomplete, refactoring and class-browsing plugins. Yes, some tasks map excellent to the visual metaphor. Scanning hierarchies and seeing high-level overviews are indeed useful abstractions, but that is not the point. The point is that if you want an excellent debugger, use an excellent debugger. If you want a good refactoring tool, use a good refactoring tool. Don't throw it all in one system and call it a day. That is not the UNIX way and yes, I am saying that is the superior way. In all of its vulgar, plebeian ways, the UNIXes have stood the test of time and I'd seriously reconsider dumping that.
~ Angry, but generally peaceful if slightly anxious and over-caffeinated Engineer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What the Smalltalk and apparently now the Pharo people don't seem to understand is that the entire OS is the IDE, "the image". My OS and all of its rules, tools and configuration, the UNIX philosophy, the POSIX standard, all of its history and convention: _that_ is my dev environment and it's as LIVE as anything can be. Not some one-off unicorn IDE - no matter how awesome it is, sorry guys. My entire toolchain in all…
> Without the UNIX philosophy none of this would even get off the ground. So the UNIX philosophy was the only possible way computing could have gone to result in a diverse set of systems that communicate with each other? Is there some sort of CS proof of this claim? Or was it just how history played out? > For some reason some people think programming is hard because you have to create some classes and struggle with…
The main issues that prevents me to have an interest in Pharo are the following two: - There is no real multithreading support - It's not easily embeddable I believe that there are attempts to tackle these problems but what is the status?
and... https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/blob/Cog/p...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty chaotic postcard. I think I get the point that it's trying to make, but at first glance it doesn't exactly convey the idea of simplicity.
Keep in mind that seems to be the entire syntax. Doesn't look chaotic to me, and I'm not even a Pharo (or Smalltalk) user!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do something like: `Stdio stdout nextPutAll: 'Hello, World!'.`
Are you suggesting that `FileStream stdout` doesn't work, or that using `Stdio stdout` is in some way better, or that `nextPutAll:` will add a newline, or that … ?
Looks interesting. Getting a weird error when installing it via Homebrew, though: "“Pharo6.1-64” is damaged and can’t be opened. You should move it to the Trash." Anyone experience anything similar?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without the UNIX philosophy none of this would even get off the ground. So the UNIX philosophy was the only possible way computing could have gone to result in a diverse set of systems that communicate with each other? Is there some sort of CS proof of this claim? Or was it just how history played out? > For some reason some people think programming is hard because you have to create some classes and struggle with…
LOL sorry about that. But still, yeah. > So the UNIX philosophy was the only possible way computing could have gone to result in a diverse set of systems that communicate with each other? I don't know and it is not relevant. If you're so inclined you may come up with another paradigm. Anyway, Pharo in particular is not such a paradigm, it's a fancy tool. Fancy, but a tool and it should behave as such and should co-op…
[1] https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831...
So Pharo/Smalltalk can be orders or magnitude less complex that a full OS and yes is running inside one, but for me that means that it gives you a unified way of dealing with environment/OS complexity (mostly incidental) by providing an interactive, live, supporting place to thing about your prototypes. I made Grafoscopio[2] using Pharo, after trying the Operative System approach and translating symbols to files and dealing with that mismatch and with a plethora of (incidental) complexity (See [3]). Despite of being a Unix/Linux user since 20+ years and a novice coder at that time, the feeling of empowerment provided by Pharo compared to the tools I was using in Linux before was pretty big.
[2] http://mutabit.com/grafoscopio/index.en.html [3] http://mutabit.com/offray/static/blog/output/posts/grafoscop...
I'm glad you have decided to test the tool by yourself and I highly recommend reading [1] for a deeper understanding on how Unix and Pharo/Smalltalk compare to each other and how the last implodes complexity, even when living inside the first one.
Cheers,
Any good examples of open source tools made using Pharo?