On 8 March 2018 at 06:15, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:

timrowledge wrote
> What would I like to be able to use Squeak for?
> Everything.

Amen to that!

[rant, but hopefully not too OT]
I recently forayed into the bash world to get CI up and running for my
Smalltalk projects - certainly one of the circles of hell! Where one would
simply write a simple, understandable code snippet in Smalltalk, in the bash
world, you have to know insanely-irrelevant-to-the-task-at-hand things like
"alphabetize the arguments and put each one on a separate line with a
command line break (`… /`) so that git diffs will be easier to compare
manually - W.T.H.!! I got so frustrated that I stopped and took a half a day
to wrap the "logic" in Smalltalk - phewww much better. Reading the docs,
which had no sense of irony or even awareness that they were seemingly
spending most of their time and energy on accidental complexity instead of
performing useful work, I thought of Alan Kay's statement (heavily
paraphrased) that many programmers relish in systems in direct proportion to
their obtuseness because they get satisfaction of being the only person on
earth to be able to actually make the thing work!
[/rant, but hopefully not too OT]

I used to be really annoyed by people demanding that "irrelevant" things be alphabetized - usings clauses in C#, in particular. Except that if you alphabetize things, you drastically reduce the chances of a merge conflict.

I don't see how Bash or Squeak could save you from that - Monticello is not clever enough, IIRC, to handle two edits to the same line of a method.

But otherwise, I... would avoid Bash as much as possible. It's not the nicest language in the world in which to write anything. (Hence why all my CI work in Squeak was in Ruby, which is much nicer to work with than Bash.)

frank

-----
Cheers,
Sean
--
Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Squeak-Dev-f45488.html