[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> This story of SmallTalk image seems to me quite backward.  Proposing
> that each person "lives" in his own image or that he is has to accept
> wholesale another image is like proposing an autistic world as a norm
> where granular interaction between people is impossible.  What is the
> sharing process, what is the granularity?

I think the problem with providing an all-encompassing environment is that
it doesn't just compete with some alternative programming environment, it
competes with an entire operating system and everything that surrounds it.
All the functionality that anyone can muster using existing tools and
scripts needs to be duplicated, including compatibility with existing
version control tools, and (incremental) backups, integration with other
languages, etc.

Saying "just use one environment, and do *everything* in Smalltalk" is, in a
sense, asking people to switch OSes and abandon existing tools.  Or, put
another way, it's an indivisible bundle of functionality, which removes a
lot of choice.  That's a tough sell, even ignoring the language switch.
Whatever new environment is being sold better be able to do *everything*.

> "Source code in files - how quaint."  -- Kent Beck

The question is, what do Smalltalk environments offer to duplicate the
functionality of files - their ability to be shared granularly amongst
multiple disparate applications?  There's value and synergy there which
can't simply be ignored.