Esteban, Just to be clear, I believe that there should be Smalltalk scripting/cli from within the image (augment workspace usage) as well as from without ...
more food (for lunch) thought:) Dale On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com > wrote: > 2014-06-30 13:15 GMT-03:00 Dale Henrichs <dale.henri...@gemtalksystems.com > >: > > 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... > > > > There is room in Smalltalk for plain old-fashioned scripts (workspaces > don't > > quite cut it in this regard) that can be easily shared and customized > (and > > written in Smalltalk) ... > > > > anway, some (breakfast) food for thought... > > This is, in my opinion, a flaw that affects any system born as a GUI. > There was no CLI culture in the past. > It happens to Smalltalk, obviously, and also affected Microsoft > (another UI centric OS) who had to put a lot of effort (and $$$) to > add command line support for most of their solutions, as a response to > devops and similar users. Mac got developer traction since they put > BSD underneath a fancy GUI. > > According to the Unix Philosophy ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy) > > Smalltalk, and Pharo, are compliant with the "Rule of Modularity" > whitin the image, but not with the "Rule of composition" as seen from > external programs. > > Pharo's command line support is certainly better than before. > But we're not there yet, when even web pages are mostly > composed/scaffolded/provisioned using CLI tools today instead of using > behemont tools like Dreamweaver/Expression. > > This is also food for thought. In case anybody is still hungry. :) > > Regards! > >
