The Weekly Juan #4: "Smalltalk, Direct Manipulation and End User Programming"

Aaron Reichow revaaron at
Wed Nov 15 02:54:49 UTC 2006

On Nov 10, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Lex Spoon wrote:

> Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at> writes:
>> Juan Vuletich wrote on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:55:22 -0300
>>> Besides, code based development
>>> (i.e. not relying on the assembly of objects in a certain image)  
>>> eases
>>> team work and version tracking.
>> Here I must strongly disagree. [...] Unless you
>> had seen it yourself it is hard for you imagine how much fun this was
>> and how productive they were....
> The two are not incompatible.  You can use exported code as the
> authoritative version of the code, while using an object-rich image to
> actually edit that code.
> In fact, this is the *normal* way to develop in Smalltalk.  You can
> always start in a fresh image if you want.  You simply load all the
> code off the disk or out of your version control system.

Indeed.  You don't even need anything fancy like Monticello.  The way  
I generally develop in Squeak is to:

1. Have an agreed design among the parties involved.
2. Keep stuff well sorted in class and method categories.
3. Use changesets.
4. Change what came with the image as little as you can.  But when  
these changes are made, distribute them seperately.
5. For everything else, I just file out the categories.

This might sound downright medieval to some, it's not failed me yet,  
even in projects where there are a few people involved.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list