On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 10:01 AM, kilon alios <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ----------Dale-------------
>
> "Smalltalk with it's heavy reliance on GUI-based tools is not quite as
> easy to customize (for several reasons) ... before knickers get knotted,
> please keep in mind that I think that customizable GUI-based tools are
> important, it's just that the GUI raises the entry level bar a bit higher
> than it needs to be... "
>
> I can't speak for others but I would say that for me is lack of
> documentation mainly, I am actually learning Rubric slowly, obviously I
> don't code in Pharo full time as some of you nor I have years of experience
> in my back, reading and understanding code is a slow process. If those
> tools were well documented there would be a lot more people hacking them
> and contributing to them since it would lower the steep learning curve
> quite substantially. But I can understand that Pharo has not the amount of
> people that for example emacs has to provide an in depth documentation
> about its tools and libraries and I try to help it to come one step closer.
>
> I don't think not having GUIs is a problem for me. I did not have issues
> working with Metacello . I actually recently started using Versioner and I
> use it for the simple stuff, have no issues falling back to metacello if I
> have to. Pharo puts emphasis on GUI but it should not be viewed as a
> mandatory requirement. I am actually working on making Workspace behave
> similar to emacs with as less GUI as possible. There is even a tool to run
> a shell terminal inside Pharo and of course we should forget that Pharo
> runs from terminal too.
>

Cool! I really think it is worthwhile exploring the territory "below the
GUI" or "with minimal GUI" ... there is no question that a good GUI tool is
very useful, but there is a place for the stripped down minimal effort
tools as well ...

Dale

Reply via email to