I am one of those that Dimitris Chloupis calls "shortcut guys". Actually, I think using the mouse is a performance killer. I agree with the argument that editing files instead of manipulating the image wouldn't make sense, if I could edit code as fast as I do in Emacs or Vim. In those editors, you have macros. They are explicitly designed to be usable without the mouse. At some point, you manipulate text without thinking. That's nowhere near what you can accomplish with Nautilus (or Calypso, I suspect).
Having said that, I don't use Emacs or Vim to edit .st files, but in specific cases when I know what I'm doing and it's not dealing with live objects, but with bootstrapping images. In the past, I felt I was missing Emacs because I wasn't yet fully immersed in a live environment. I was uncomfortable editing code in Pharo, but it was tolerable. Of course, it would have been much more tolerable if I didn't know Emacs, so I wasn't aware of what I was missing. I expect to be able to customize the keybindings (which would be a huge boost for me) in Nautilus or Calypso, and once that happens my life in Pharo would be much much happier. In summary, if someone misses Emacs or Vim when working with Pharo, it could be due to: - being stuck in the file-based way to think of coding. - or, missing the productivity aids that are not present on Pharo. Besides that, is there an easy way to run an image in text-only mode, with a REPL or a playground or something like that? El jue., 24 ene. 2019 a las 17:59, Dimitris Chloupis (<kilon.al...@gmail.com>) escribió: > "Honestly, Pharo without the environment (and the “live objects” approach) > is just another dynamic language without much interest. > Thinking the IDE is just autocompletion is a poor idea of what a live > environment can do for you." > > And I repeat once more, I NEVER said use external editor instead of Pharo, > I said use external editor with Pharo. No idea how to make this any more > clear. With my approach you sacrifice nothing from Pharo. > > "These are all valid points (and I started by saying that everybody is > free to do whatever they want), but wouldn't you agree that the best > experience is" > > Nothing absolutely nothing in my book comes remotely close to how polished > Delphi and amazingly powerful IDE with great GUI design, > No I dont agree emacs is an IDE at all, even setting up its tools is a > huge pain. I tried to set it up for Python coding and it tooks me ages to > reach absolutely zero. Vim is nowhere near to being an IDE. Lispworks I > have no idea never used it , same story with mathematica. I have used > PyCharm which is I think is the equivelant of IntelliJ, well designed IDE > but too weak for my taste. XCode only supports ObjC and Swift and as an IDE > , even though an Apple product it lets a lot to be desired in GUI design > and also not impressive. > > So for me its first Delphi or its open source variant Free Pascal/Lazarus > and then is Pharo. Suprisingly Visual Studio is a nice IDE (just nice) but > not VSCode which I currently use which is 100% code editor. > > To be sincere I have given up on the idea of IDEs mainly because even with > Pharo it was a huge pain to customise them, usual coding problem of lack of > documentation, no code comments etc. Nowdays I design my own dev tools from > scratch, they are not pretty but get the job done partially and at least I > know the code well enough to easily improve it. > > My livecoding lib has become quite usable lately and now I am slowly > venturing into the territory of memory managment and data visualisation. > > The IDE for me is a very personal experience, of course that does not mean > that Pharo and Delphi are not still my idols. Love them both. They are > amazing restaurants, with the best chefs in the world but in the end > nothing is like home made food. > > I dont agree that Smalltalk without an IDE is a Smalltalk, thus I do not > consider GNU Smalltalk a Smalltalk at all. > > "Giving people a subpar entry into our world will probably not convince > them that there is something cool to be seen there." > > I think my video tutorials have given more than enough good reason to use > Pharo and even more to love Pharo. I find it hard to believe that one video > tutorial going to change that. I never hidden my love for Pharo. Also for > me live coding has become mandatory anyway which why I went to such great > extends to implement it in Python and C. Mind you nowhere near the Pharo's > elegance but it works. > > "Nice clip - short and sweet. You may want to point people to about chunk > file format in the description to alert people who may break chunk > syntax by accident and get confused when fileIn breaks (been there, done > that :-(). Also a caveat not to edit *.changes or *.sources though they > look very similar to *.st files." > > I have explicitly said to edit only st files, no idea how to make myself > any more clear. Although sometime making mistakes is a great excuse to > learn something. Because I never intended this to be a replacement for > Pharo , I thought unnecessary to focus on the syntax of the st file format. > > I think I should add a warning to the video "WARNING!!!! THIS IS NO > REPLACEMENT FOR PHARO BUT AN EXTENSION". > > "The users that you are going to attract in this way (the ones that don't > want to leave their own IDE/editor), will look at textual Pharo and find it > very strange and ill suited to textual editing (and they are absolutely > right), they will not discover the power, will not learn (from this > experience alone) what object design/programming/power is, and will ask for > more (e.g. give me C style compiler errors, better/easier structure of the > file, fixed the !! escape issue, etc, ...)." > > I think you are a bit too optimistic. People if they dont like something > they just give up and move on. When was the last time you saw a post here > by a person saying "I like to use Pharo but I will not because it does not > have X". Rarely if not never, because these type of people you describe are > gone in 50 seconds. > > To be sincere if my video makes them leave, awesome, we dont need people > who dont use Pharo complaining about Pharo. And plus I would love someone > to even mention C, I have like an army of complains about this language and > I have to use it everyday. Well at least is not as bad as C++. Thank God > !!!!! > > By they way we had this discussion before in the community. When I first > mentioned Git and Github (2011) back when using Git with Pharo and > especially an external website to upload code was unthinkable , if not > heretic, I can remember how many told me that this would be an excuse for > people not to learn Pharo. I did not buy it then , I did not buy it now. > > If you search for Pharo you will find Pharo, its that simple. The rest is > just excuses. > > Pharo should not be afraid of other technologies , other technologies > should be afraid of Pharo. Assimilate, resistance is futile. >
