On Pon, 2015-12-28 at 12:19 -0600, Jimmie Houchin wrote: > There are so many advantages to using tools in Pharo when using > Pharo.
I agree with it and that's why I asked what might be some advantages of using Pillar as documentation tool. > Do we now adopt yet another language, environment, editor, ... in > order to meet that need? That is fine for people whose preferred > environment and toolset is so defined. But that is not the preferred > way in Pharo (or Smalltalk). I believe you understand it's not feasible to have *every* required tool available within Pharo...in my case if Pillar shows it's capable enough to replace need for using rst, I'll be enthusiastic to embrace it. Otoh, considering that I'm just starting/learning Pharo, it's obvious I'm accustomed to use *many* other tools which do the job. So, being able to use *single* markup for all my writing is clearly advantageous since it spares me from 'changing gears' in a similar way that the upcoming feature in Fossil DVCS will allow one to sync with Git(hub) repositories - no more need to fiddle with Git and focusing solely to Fossil. The end result as Richard (Hipp) wrote and, I believe, what I heard from Stef on one of his presentations is that less brain cpu cells/cycles are burnt which is always good. :-) > I think adding footnotes to Pillar is a great idea. I am not ready to > do > so. I am not a qualified Pillar user yet. But when I am, I would not > hesitate to add it to Pillar and improve the tool of the environment > I > prefer to use. I am neither Pillar nor Pharo-qualified user, but share the same sentiments in regard. ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act as a matter of duty, for by working without attachment one attains the Supreme.
