>> 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 fo
Thank you!
It bothers me slightly that we're actually having this discussion. Trying to
divorce Smalltalk from the image loses a great deal of flexibility that we have
all come to know and love. Divorcing Smalltalk from the image so we can use
great tools might be a reasonable thing to do, but
> Using git has nothing to do with a file based system. The approach would be
> to use git as a storage backend for monticello. Git just stores 3 types of
> objects: commit, tree, blob.
> There are no files involved!! So this would be perfectly compatible with and
> image based system such as s
>
> So, we can complain that we are not using git, but there are very good
> reasons for not using git ... today.
First: anyone complaining that we can't use git, hasn't used great version
control tools. I think what people want is GitHub, which is great. We can have
GitHub and base it on
hat he needs to
> convince some pointy-haired-boss-type person, by directing him or her to a
> well-respected "official" statistic that "proves" what we all know to be
> true from experience. Sadly, I think it will be hard to find it :-(
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Pete
I've always felt that "test driving" code actually results in negative
time spent on "testing". I spend (and everyone I know that tests well
does as well) a lot less time writing code test-first than I ever
would writing the same code without the tests first. Also, I spend far
less time (almost non
FWIW, Git is a very generic system. There's no reason we couldn't
write a storage adapter for MC that puts the repo in Git. Git only
knows about objects, and the versions thereof. We could easily have
Monticello on top of git.
I'm not sure I think it's a good solution, but it sounds like
something
I can't find an english translation. Can someone summarize this in
english for me?
Thanks,
-Steven
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Miguel Cobá wrote:
> Congrats Stéph,
>
> http://www.inria.fr/centre-de-recherche-inria/lille-nord-europe/actualites/un-chercheur-de-l-inria-a-la-york-university
>
>
About 6 months ago I shelved a project for doing Heroku-style
deployments from Pharo to Seaside. Perhaps I should dig out my backup
and pick it up. I thought I was the only one that might want this, and
I got caught up with some issues serializing and sending objects over
the network.
So that's my
Heya folks,
I need SSL support for WebClient. SqueakSSL fails to build in my Pharo
image. Is SqueakSSL supposed to work? (Before I spend more time
troubleshooting it.) Is there another method?
Thanks,
-Steve
I don't copy images, I put everything in Monticello and share the
code. But I'd still like to hear what everyone else's workflow is.
-Steven
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Oscar E A Callau
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been programming in Smalltalk/Pharo for a time, and it is really
> nice
That doesn't actually work, because squeaksource.com has a landing page.
-Steven
2010/10/13 Norbert Hartl :
> http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/squeaksource.com
> you can use this if you are asking yourself.
> Norbert
> On 13.10.2010, at 09:40, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
>
> yes from here :(
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
