> On 05 Jan 2015, at 16:09, p...@highoctane.be wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <s...@stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 05 Jan 2015, at 15:28, horrido <horrido.hobb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You're quite right. I guess I should focus on *one thing* right now before > > it > > gets lost in the shuffle: Complete and publish my Amber tutorial. I have a > > lot of work ahead of me in this one. > > Not that I have anything against Amber, but why pick that one ? > > Everybody seems to think something along the lines of 'JavaScript is very > popular, if only we get on that platform and we'll be all set' - I don't > think that is the case. Even Amber's original developer is now working full > time on JavaScript, yet does no longer seem to use it. > > Hey, Amber is alive! 0.14 just out. Herby does a good job, examples are > refined, we are injecting effort in it.
Yes I know, and it *is* an interesting project, for sure. But my remark was in the context of The Smalltalk Renaissance - does it really fit ? Is it the best poster child ? > It takes a while to get things to 1.0. We can't afford to pass on SPAs and it > is not with Seaside that we'll do it. > > > Also, on technical grounds it could be argued that Amber misses a number of > critical Smalltalk features (thisContext, #become:). Furthermore, it is > slower and has a only a limited IDE. > > thisContext and become: aren't in but even like that, the prototyping power > of Amber is strong even if tooling can be improved (first the core, then the > bells and whistles). > > Javascript also has features that Smalltalk doesn't have. So, it is a give or > take game. > If anything, Amber helps one into understanding the current Javascript ways > in a quite good manner. It does for me. > > > Other than that, focus is good. > > > For the time being, I'll cut back on my tweets and Facebook and Google+.
