|
|
|
|
|
|
by metroholografix
1445 days ago
|
|
|
You can try - I certainly did - but it's inferior, in nearly every way: performance most of all, usability, interfacing with the host OS, availability of libraries, APIs, interactive documentation, discoverability, customization.. The fact that Emacs has been in use (for decades) as a tool aimed at primarily solving everyday problems, means that it's been optimized for practicality to a ridiculous extent. That's not the case with Squeak, since it still has a very strong academic/research focus and a much smaller userbase than Emacs. That's not to say that Squeak is useless, I'm a hardcore Emacs user and I do use Squeak too, but it's nowhere near as practical. It does however offer by far the best environment to experiment with Smalltalk and image-based development. On the other hand, I don't recommend Pharo, as I found it even less practical than Squeak with frequent braking changes and a -seemingly- complete lack of focus that has pulled the project in widely different directions over the years. At least, Squeak is cohesive and hasn't broken with Alan Kay's vision. |
|
|
Nonsense! Pharo's focus is to make writing Pharo more Pharo and easier for Pharo users. Mind, if your app isn't a Smalltalk VM and IDE, then, yea, it's full of tumult and turmoil. Aren't they on their 3rd or 4th GUI toolkit rewrite now? I mean, credit where credit is due, they eat their own dog food to be sure, but as a meal, that's just not as inviting to others.