The problem with relying for everything on smalltalk code and not using existing technology is two fold a) You cannot compete with existing solution, they come with more manpower , have more features, better documention, more bug fixes, more, more ...... more b) One day the authors of the library decide to give up on the library because they went off to other things and of course it falls to the shoulders of others that are much less motivated and have other things in their plate too with higher priority for them. The library continues to improve but at a glacial pace. Its perfectly ok to try your own things and follow your own road. Everyone loves to experiment and do things his own way and that has many positive. But the general refusal to embrace existing technologies even problematic ones make the job of spreading the Smalltalk appeal much harder. Makes it harder for people to transition from other languages too. This smalltalk mentality is wrong. The end. On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Craig,
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Craig Latta <craig@netjam.org> wrote:
I don't think anybody ever even reported trying [Ffenestri].
I did; it worked. And I just said so again a few messages ago. Hm.
OK. It opens windows. But a snippet in a workspace can do that. It does not constitute a replacement for the current window system though does it? But Vassili's work can be. We had it in production at customer sites. We could use it for development. It was complete, in the sense that one could open arbitrary system windows as native windows, switch them back to "virtual" windows, snapshot etc and everything would keep working. That's "working". With great respect to Tim and John, their work in Ffenestri is not the same thing, is it? By the same criteria I don't think what Qwaq did constituted a real system; it allowed the login WIndow to be displayed natively, but it didn't support development tools and it certainly didn't support snapshot or dynamic switching. Being critical is not being insulting. It's merely being objective. At least I hope I'm being objective and not insulting anyone. It is not my intent.
-- best, Eliot