Explaining Ourselves (was Re: [squeak-dev] SmalltalkHub)

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Thu Apr 7 21:55:57 UTC 2011


On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Casey Ransberger
<casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>wrote:

> I want this too. Too many Rubyists haven't interacted with their history
> much. I know because I was among them. Hell, I was also into Obj-C and
> didn't know where my roots were. Someone had to shout at me over beers to
> get me to open up my eyes, he said "This stuff isn't new! Look at
> Smalltalk!"
>
> Less than a year later I got to ship Squeak. It's a shame that there's so
> much in the way for new comers. Having to learn a whole IDE is bad enough,
> but having to give up the warm familiar SCM seems to have been a real deal
> breaker for folks I've pitched e.g. Seaside to.
>
> While I was compelled to learn by the mystery of this thirty year old
> system that did all my favorite programming tricks and then some, I think
> the obstacles are tall enough that a lot of people just pass us by.
>
> In general I think "learning to play well with others" will make the
> difference between a halo effect around Ruby/Rails driving people into our
> community, and starving for people to run the Board.
>

+1


>
> On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at angband.za.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2011/04/07 21:13, Colin Putney wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Frank Shearar
> >> <frank.shearar at angband.za.org>  wrote:
> >>
> >>> *cough*. Me. OK, I want to be _able_ to. For instance, I'd like to be
> able
> >>> to bang out a Smalltalk script as easily as I can a Ruby one, with all
> the
> >>> interoperability that implies (piping to and from other utilities, for
> >>> instance), and in particular, do so without pulling a 20-30MB image.
> >>
> >> Why not just use Ruby? Ok, the syntax is a little baroque, but it's
> >> basically Smalltalk in files.
> >
> > Yes, but Ruby's also greasy.
> >
> >>> The main thing is that time and again we waste our time writing our own
> >>> implementations of things, when surely we have better things to do? (I
> can
> >>> provide a long list... :) )
> >>
> >> Is "Ruby" on the list?     :-P
> >
> > Nah. I just want to be able to show colleagues that they can get the ease
> of using Ruby without all the gunk.
> >
> > frank
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110407/6f5b373a/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list