No because turing conplete means you have to implement all those live features yourself, I only gave a taste but I return to Python because thats the language I know the most, you can live manipulate objects in so many diffirent ways and mess their structure. Make a method become an instance variable,and instance variable to a method, rename variables , change the signature of your methods but only on specific instance or on the class itself. There is an incredibe large library of object manipulation features there to be tamed. Pharo can do many of those things and more of course.
Turing complete would apply to me if I said, Python has no live coding feature, but you can implement those if you want. Thats not what I am saying. Python or C may not call this live coding, they call it dynamic libraries, dynamic loading of modules, exceptions , post mortem debugging (debugger popping up in case of error) , module reloading, execution time compiling and many more. They never mentions the word "live coding" , but the features themselves are directly related and very fundamental requirements for live coding. Those features exists because live coding is a necessity , there will be always scenarios that a coder will want to dynamically change something during execution. There is no big ideology behind it like Pharto , which is why Pharo is the best at live coding, but rather practical needs that users requested to be resolved and the devs of languages were forced to implement them to keep them happy. For example its possible to extend live coding outside the Pharo image, using memory mapped files , the Pharo image can be extended not only to save Pharo live state but also the live state of any C library it depends on. This is crucial when you open the image and then you find something does not work because C live state was not storred which is why we have the session attribute we use to make sure that C libraries are correctly initialize in image startup. My CPPBridge which is 100% Pharo project , if you exclude some C examples , it provide a basic way of a live coding image that can act as an extension to the pharo image and include live C state. So yes I have done my hopework. As a matter of fact each time I hear arguments turing complete wise, I facepalm myself. Because its a louse excuse to support a language. Any tool or library that can save you time its a huge deal. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:40 PM Denis Kudriashov <dionisi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dimitris. > > You opinion about live programming reminds me the common sentence from > developers who don't care about languages at all. Usual argument is: they > all are Turing complete, so who cares. > > 2017-10-10 11:02 GMT+02:00 webwarrior <r...@webwarrior.ws>: > >> Calm your tits, dude. No need to use Caps Lock that much :-) >> >> I made no value judgements in my post, letting readers decide for >> themselves. >> Nor did I attribute any claims to you. Except "live coding in Python is >> easy", which you did say in some earlier posts. >> >> > My post were not made to pick a fight but rather to inform and demolish >> > the wrong assumptions that other languages CANNOT DO live coding. >> >> Well, many of them kinda can. >> But you see, when live coding is an afterthought, problems appear here and >> there, and some of them are unsolvable. Up to the point that it's easier >> to >> do traditional development process and not bother with live coding at all. >> >> It's almost like saying that you can do point-free style functional >> programming in Python. >> Of course you can (to some extent). There is even a library for that >> (https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pointfree/). >> I there much sense in it? I don't think so. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> >> >
