kilon alios wrote > Watched it once more and now it clear that he presented Smalltalk in a > very fair > manner
Yes, it was very fair and a nice bridge between the Ruby and Smalltalk communities i.e. not too elitist. kilon alios wrote > I also completely agree with his criticism on smalltalk of... not playing > well with > others I think this has always been a red herring. How exactly does Ruby "play well with others"? Wth does that mean? If we're talking about e.g. native windows, Ruby has bindings to GUI libraries because it has a community big enough that is interested-in-that enough to write them. In fact IIRC, someone wrote GTK bindings for Squeak/Pharo, but there was little user interest and they took their code elsewhere. There's no difference in that regard. Another barrier of course, is that binding to external UI libraries in a way violates the turtles-all-the-way-down principle of Smalltalk and would only be a kludge until you could replace them with an implementation that was part of the live, uniform system. Although if not being satisfied with a system that is complicated beyond human comprehension is "not playing well with others", perhaps you should reconsider your friendships ha ha ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756895.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.