[squeak-dev] Crazy idea for a programming editor in Squeak *for C*
lists at fniephaus.com
Thu Mar 22 13:55:13 UTC 2018
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 7:46 PM Tm Jhnsn <digit at sonic.net> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> I would love to see this for C and/or Python. I too think it would
> be possible and cool.
We've recently worked on adapting Squeak tools for Python and Ruby. 
shows for example a Squeak debugger for Python and we also have this
somewhat working for Ruby. A journal paper with more details and use cases
will be presented and published next month (see ). Unfortunately, the
tool adaptations are still experimental and currently undocumented which is
why we haven't released them yet. However, we are continuing this line of
work and will of course keep you updated on our progress.
> Maybe a new SHTextStyler subclass or two could come into play. And
> Subprocess, down the line.
Fun fact: we've actually been able to use Pygments  as a SHTextStyler in
our prototype. :)
> Erm, just had a flashback to what I know of the Smalltalk history of
> the Eclipse IDE. ;)
> On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:42 AM, tim Rowledge wrote:
> > So thinking about things related to Subbu's questions it suddenly
> > came to me that we might be able to make a much nicer C editor than
> > most seem to be.
> > Caution - I use TextWrangler on my iMac when I have to mess with C.
> > This may well bias my opinion.
> > Seems to me that most so called IDEs that let you handle C code are
> > pretty pathetic. You load a file and scroll up and down it. If
> > you're lucky it scans the file and makes sort of bookmark of
> > function locations etc. You might get a half decent comparison tool
> > to compare different versions.
> > Now, we have a useful but in need of improvement tool for reading
> > source code files without actually loading them in the
> > FileContentsBrowser. A variant of that could read C source, split
> > it up, parse the bits and bobs and maybe provide a decent
> > structured view of the code.
> > Yes, I remember ObjectWorks C++ and the debacle of C++ programmers
> > not wanting anything more advanced than vi.
> > There's also a possible value for this in the Python world where
> > they at least pretend to have a clue about objects.
> > tim
> > --
> > tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> > Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know
> > what you are talking about.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev