[Pharo-project] glamour and pharo

Tudor Girba tudor at tudorgirba.com
Mon Jan 2 00:14:26 CET 2012

Hi Stef,

On 1 Jan 2012, at 09:14, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> On Jan 1, 2012, at 1:24 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>>> 		I do not like the magic of the block and arguments
>> There really is little magic. In fact, it is about the same as the magic of Morphic calling selectors with arguments.
> except that it changes the perception of blocks arguments and usage.

I do not understand.

>>> Still I do not see how we extend browsers. We discussed that during the PhD meal at bern with lukas
>>> and I'm still not convinced. 
>> I am not sure what you are referring to.
> How I can create a subclass and customize.

Subclass of what? Perhaps we should just set a case study and I try to show something. But first, I would need to understand what the concern is. Could you help me with it?

>> Please understand that this debate started because you said it's sad that Alex would choose to work on top of Glamour for the Metacello browser. I simply would like to understand why you think it's so. To me, there does not seem to be a strong argument.
> Because if alex can build a model and a little UI for basic image and wrap it with a better UI for glamouroust then 
> we all win. Now if there is no UI for basic then the people like me that are always coding in alpha and working a lot 
> with metacello will get zero benefit.
> I think that the plan is the following:
> 	- make the best IDE you can and that the people use it like hell
> 	- make sure that you force pharo to always load it 
> 	- for the moment we are focusing on cleaning below. Now the challenge is that we need tools too.

Sounds ok :). It's much better than the "sad" remark :).

But, I thought the whole idea of one Pharo image was to get some decent tools in there for the benefit of the infrastructural work as well. Am I wrong?



"What is more important: To be happy, or to make happy?"

More information about the Pharo-project mailing list