>> A thing I not understand is why we need to go "file-based" if we are >> already object based (several steps ahead)? > > The folks that would like to see Smalltalk be more file-based have very good > points ... Smalltalk would be more accessible to other developers, it would > be easier for folks to learn Smalltalk if they didn't have to learn new tools > along with a new language, etc....
They already have GNU Smalltalk. GNU Smalltalk is a nice in-between for this. I find I lose a lot, though. > So it would be really nice if we could keep our object orientation while > providing a development environment that was familiar to developers from > other languages .... > > we'd have our cake and eat it too:) > >> >> >> >>> Until then, long live SqueakSource3 and SmalltalkHub:) >>> >> >> Sure! But, (I'm only asking) we couldn't using Git with objects? It's >> only curiosity, not that I would like Git, eheh, I knew Github only >> today! > > At the moment I don't think that a transition to to Git would be transparent > ... If it were that easy, I would think that it would be done by now:). Not only that, but by storing Smalltalk code in Git, we'd lose most of the features that you want from version control anyways, since Git tools only work with text files. -Steven
