[Pharo-project] Emacs and Smalltalk code
Hi all, I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue? Cheers.
the first advice I can give is not to use aquamacs. Gnu emacs for macos is much better and much more powerful and complete. You can find it here -> http://emacsformacosx.com/ from there on you need to make sure smalltalk mode is enabled when an st file is opened to see syntax highlighting. ________________________________ From: Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> To: "Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr" <Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr> Sent: Monday, 8 October 2012, 17:51 Subject: [Pharo-project] Emacs and Smalltalk code Hi all,   I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue? Cheers.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future). If you still want to use Emacs, you will have to install a smalltalk mode. One can be found with gnu-smalltalk. If you are on a Debian-based Linux distribution, install gnu-smalltalk-el. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code. frank
If you still want to use Emacs, you will have to install a smalltalk mode. One can be found with gnu-smalltalk. If you are on a Debian-based Linux distribution, install gnu-smalltalk-el.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 8 October 2012 19:02, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code.
Alright, OK, I wrote that with at least 50% troll in the mix. (*) There's no reason why one shouldn't be able to use standard text manipulation techniques to hack on Smalltalk code. We simply never bothered doing so, and I dare say that the majority of people on this list are happy not supporting text-using tools. (*) OK, OK, 75%. frank
If you still want to use Emacs, you will have to install a smalltalk mode. One can be found with gnu-smalltalk. If you are on a Debian-based Linux distribution, install gnu-smalltalk-el.
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 8 October 2012 20:08, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 19:02, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code.
Alright, OK, I wrote that with at least 50% troll in the mix. (*) There's no reason why one shouldn't be able to use standard text manipulation techniques to hack on Smalltalk code. We simply never bothered doing so, and I dare say that the majority of people on this list are happy not supporting text-using tools.
(*) OK, OK, 75%.
Being told so many times.. People still keep missing the point. Smalltalk is not just source code it is environment of live objects. Good luck manipulating live objects in emacs. It is , of course up to you, If you prefer to code in stone age. I, personally cannot code outside image, without browser , debugger and such..
frank
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On 8 October 2012 19:22, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 20:08, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 19:02, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code.
Alright, OK, I wrote that with at least 50% troll in the mix. (*) There's no reason why one shouldn't be able to use standard text manipulation techniques to hack on Smalltalk code. We simply never bothered doing so, and I dare say that the majority of people on this list are happy not supporting text-using tools.
(*) OK, OK, 75%.
Being told so many times.. People still keep missing the point. Smalltalk is not just source code it is environment of live objects. Good luck manipulating live objects in emacs.
Please show me a live object in a Browser. Please. No, not a textual representation of a computation. Oh, that's right, you are STILL writing source code prior to compiling. Fail.
It is , of course up to you, If you prefer to code in stone age. I, personally cannot code outside image, without browser , debugger and such..
That's a strawman. I WANT a debugger, I WANT inspectors. I also WANT a proper top level syntax and the ability to use the thousands of tools that everyone else in the WHOLE WORLD takes for granted. OK, I've exceeded my capital letter quota for the day. (Also, clearly you've never used SLIME. I know this because SLIME lets you do everything you could want to, because it queries a real live running system to get its information. And guess how the Lispers store their source code? In text files, in git. I have seen zero reason in my, er, 13 years of Smalltalk, why we shouldn't enter source code in a proper text editor, with source properly stored in files on a disk. Yes, I want to live inside a running system as much as possible - not all the time, not being forced to do so because we lack the tools - but as much as possible. But source code is not a live object, it is text. And text should be munged by text tools, and stored in text files, and kept in a text-friendly source control system. What else do you think bootstrapping is all about? It's taking some tiny system, and making a recipe to lift that bootstrap, and that recipe is not a living object, it is a specification, and it's written in text. Smalltalk is wonderful, and the reason I still hack in it is because I can find nothing else that comes close to its sense of aliveness and engagement, and I nearly cry when I see the community reject things because of some strange ideology with the result that we end up lost in the dark. Anyway. When I have something to show, I'll talk more on this topic. frank
frank
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Being told so many times.. People still keep missing the point. Smalltalk is not just source code it is environment of live objects. Good luck manipulating live objects in emacs.
Please show me a live object in a Browser. Please. No, not a textual representation of a computation. Oh, that's right, you are STILL writing source code prior to compiling. Fail.
It is , of course up to you, If you prefer to code in stone age. I, personally cannot code outside image, without browser , debugger and such..
That's a strawman. I WANT a debugger, I WANT inspectors. I also WANT a proper top level syntax and the ability to use the thousands of tools that everyone else in the WHOLE WORLD takes for granted. OK, I've exceeded my capital letter quota for the day. (Also, clearly you've never used SLIME. I know this because SLIME lets you do everything you could want to, because it queries a real live running system to get its information. And guess how the Lispers store their source code? In text files, in git.
shhh, that are no objects! how dare you storing smalltalk in git!
I have seen zero reason in my, er, 13 years of Smalltalk, why we shouldn't enter source code in a proper text editor, with source properly stored in files on a disk. Yes, I want to live inside a running system as much as possible - not all the time, not being forced to do so because we lack the tools - but as much as possible. But source code is not a live object, it is text. And text should be munged by text tools, and stored in text files, and kept in a text-friendly source control system.
but, but we have the fancied multi-media development environment. Plus we feature the greatest text editor with shortcuts only 1% of the developers know.
What else do you think bootstrapping is all about? It's taking some tiny system, and making a recipe to lift that bootstrap, and that recipe is not a living object, it is a specification, and it's written in text.
Smalltalk is wonderful, and the reason I still hack in it is because I can find nothing else that comes close to its sense of aliveness and engagement, and I nearly cry when I see the community reject things because of some strange ideology with the result that we end up lost in the dark.
Anyway. When I have something to show, I'll talk more on this topic. please!!
On 8 October 2012 22:28, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Being told so many times.. People still keep missing the point. Smalltalk is not just source code it is environment of live objects. Good luck manipulating live objects in emacs.
Please show me a live object in a Browser. Please. No, not a textual representation of a computation. Oh, that's right, you are STILL writing source code prior to compiling. Fail.
It is , of course up to you, If you prefer to code in stone age. I, personally cannot code outside image, without browser , debugger and such..
That's a strawman. I WANT a debugger, I WANT inspectors. I also WANT a proper top level syntax and the ability to use the thousands of tools that everyone else in the WHOLE WORLD takes for granted. OK, I've exceeded my capital letter quota for the day. (Also, clearly you've never used SLIME. I know this because SLIME lets you do everything you could want to, because it queries a real live running system to get its information. And guess how the Lispers store their source code? In text files, in git.
shhh, that are no objects! how dare you storing smalltalk in git!
I have seen zero reason in my, er, 13 years of Smalltalk, why we shouldn't enter source code in a proper text editor, with source properly stored in files on a disk. Yes, I want to live inside a running system as much as possible - not all the time, not being forced to do so because we lack the tools - but as much as possible. But source code is not a live object, it is text. And text should be munged by text tools, and stored in text files, and kept in a text-friendly source control system.
but, but we have the fancied multi-media development environment. Plus we feature the greatest text editor with shortcuts only 1% of the developers know.
... and those who know, keep their knowledge in secret :)
What else do you think bootstrapping is all about? It's taking some tiny system, and making a recipe to lift that bootstrap, and that recipe is not a living object, it is a specification, and it's written in text.
Smalltalk is wonderful, and the reason I still hack in it is because I can find nothing else that comes close to its sense of aliveness and engagement, and I nearly cry when I see the community reject things because of some strange ideology with the result that we end up lost in the dark.
Anyway. When I have something to show, I'll talk more on this topic. please!!
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Hi Frank--
Please show me a live object in a Browser. Please. No, not a textual representation of a computation. Oh, that's right, you are STILL writing source code prior to compiling. Fail.
Browsers and debuggers are examples of inspectors, tailored to specialized tasks (e.g., writing methods and manipulating contexts). At a given moment, each inspector provides a interface for communicating with some live object. In the case of a "system browser", that live object is some class. For me, the ability to evaluate impromptu expressions in which "self" is bound to that class is what makes the browser "live". It justifies the claim that this live class is "in" the browser (although I think it makes more sense to think of the class as being "on" the browser, like a person with whom you're chatting is "on" the phone, or Skype, or TV). This communication ability is indispensable, and is what makes livecoding special for me. It manifests itself in many other ways in all the other inspectors we have. We can have useful and enlightening conversations with contexts, methods, collections, etc. etc.
And guess how the Lispers store their source code? In text files, in git.
I have a hard time imagining anyone who has used an interactive Lisp machine not finding this overwhelmingly sad. :)
I have seen zero reason in my, er, 13 years of Smalltalk, why we shouldn't enter source code in a proper text editor, with source properly stored in files on a disk.
Well, I only need one reason, and it's this: object-aware tools, composed of objects, do a better job of enabling development. The "proper" stuff above just cracks me up! :) "More widespread" or somesuch I can see, but "proper" is a gratuitous expression of personal bias.
...source code is not a live object, it is text.
Surely text need not be a live object, but it can be. If source code and other texts are live objects, they can take on useful behavior, collaborating with other objects in the pursuit of their own munging.
And text should be munged by [external] text tools, and stored in text files, and kept in a text-friendly source control system.
Sure, you could do that. Why is that the only possibility? Also, why can't object memories present themselves as filesystems, and then interact with all those crusty old external text tools? (E.g., interaction via WebDAV[1]) When you take an individual file out of the filesystem which provides its context, you then rely on conventions between people as to how to interpret those files. You're relying on the behavior of those people. I think it's an improvement to endow the artifacts themselves with as much of that behavior as possible.
What else do you think bootstrapping is all about? It's taking some tiny system, and making a recipe to lift that bootstrap, and that recipe is not a living object, it is a specification, and it's written in text.
Or it could be a specification expressed in a very small number of objects. Were you this crotchety when they got the metacircular evaluator section of your Lisp class, too? :)
...I nearly cry when I see the community reject things because of some strange ideology with the result that we end up lost in the dark.
I have a very bright torch; what wrongs need righting? :) -C [1] http://tinyurl.com/7j26wk6 -- Craig Latta www.netjam.org/resume +31 6 2757 7177 + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
On 8 October 2012 21:03, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 19:22, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 20:08, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 19:02, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code.
Alright, OK, I wrote that with at least 50% troll in the mix. (*) There's no reason why one shouldn't be able to use standard text manipulation techniques to hack on Smalltalk code. We simply never bothered doing so, and I dare say that the majority of people on this list are happy not supporting text-using tools.
(*) OK, OK, 75%.
Being told so many times.. People still keep missing the point. Smalltalk is not just source code it is environment of live objects. Good luck manipulating live objects in emacs.
Please show me a live object in a Browser. Please. No, not a textual representation of a computation. Oh, that's right, you are STILL writing source code prior to compiling. Fail.
Oh come on, do you know that navigating code made by talking to live objects, not searching through whole source text, then doing static analysis (like some IDEs doing)? If you using browser only for typing, then you Fail.
It is , of course up to you, If you prefer to code in stone age. I, personally cannot code outside image, without browser , debugger and such..
That's a strawman. I WANT a debugger, I WANT inspectors. I also WANT a proper top level syntax and the ability to use the thousands of tools that everyone else in the WHOLE WORLD takes for granted. OK, I've exceeded my capital letter quota for the day. (Also, clearly you've never used SLIME. I know this because SLIME lets you do everything you could want to, because it queries a real live running system to get its information. And guess how the Lispers store their source code? In text files, in git.
Yes. I never used SLIME. I even don't know what is it. If you think it is far superior to what we have in pharo, please feel free to open our eyes, and direct us towards better system.
I have seen zero reason in my, er, 13 years of Smalltalk, why we shouldn't enter source code in a proper text editor, with source properly stored in files on a disk. Yes, I want to live inside a running system as much as possible - not all the time, not being forced to do so because we lack the tools - but as much as possible. But source code is not a live object, it is text. And text should be munged by text tools, and stored in text files, and kept in a text-friendly source control system.
In 13 years, you had plenty of time to change things to meet your demands. Instead, you chosen path of complaining.. you make me laugh :) I can tell you more: things which you miss would be done long ago, if they would be needed so badly. But reality is that they are not.
What else do you think bootstrapping is all about? It's taking some tiny system, and making a recipe to lift that bootstrap, and that recipe is not a living object, it is a specification, and it's written in text.
This is orthogonal.
Smalltalk is wonderful, and the reason I still hack in it is because I can find nothing else that comes close to its sense of aliveness and engagement, and I nearly cry when I see the community reject things because of some strange ideology with the result that we end up lost in the dark.
Defend your view, find allies, communicate. Contribute your code. And one day you will awake having much better system. Or, if you think we moving into wrong direction, and nothing can help, you can always start own fork (like Juan did with Cuis) and fix things there to meet your standards. Sitting and crying is not a solution.
Anyway. When I have something to show, I'll talk more on this topic.
frank
frank
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On 09 Oct 2012, at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. I never used SLIME. I even don't know what is it. If you think it is far superior to what we have in pharo, please feel free to open our eyes, and direct us towards better system.
SWANK is a kind of interface/protocol between an advanced/extended editor and a running Lisp system/image. SLIME is a mode for Emacs to interact with a (possibly remote) Lisp using SWANK. It is quite impressive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLIME] Although sadly this discussion is derailing a bit, it _is_ interesting. The question of what makes Smalltalk such a nice environment to work in is hard to answer. Yes, the image and the way source code is handled is a very important part of that, but it is also true that it is all just source code that could be stored in files outside an image.Yes, the Smalltalk IDE and tools are very good, but it is also true that many environments offer similar and sometimes even better tools. Emacs is my main editor as well, I use vi occasionally, I have a long background in Lisp, for a brief period I worked a bit on real old school Symbolics Lisp machines. Although LispWorks [http://www.lispworks.com] is the closest thing to (Pharo) Smalltalk as an IDE, and although I have a production Lisp image that has been running for more than 2 years, it still does _not_ feel the same as working in Smalltalk. There is something magical there that does create a very good illusion that you really are interacting directly with live objects. Sven PS: I too sometimes curse the current editor and/or completion, but since all you do is editing short pieces of code, it does not make any difference. Navigating code and/or the live system makes all the difference. -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill
Frankly there is nothing that prevents having a superb editor in Pharo. The TextMorph and associated friends just didn't received enough love. They are already lots better than in 1.3. Also, is there any WebDav interface we can have on the image so that we can see everything as files (Like Package>Classe is modeled with folders and methods are files. Then editing something in there with whatever text editor would work and saving would result in compiling the method. Is there any such WebDav interface BTW? Phil 2012/10/9 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu>
On 09 Oct 2012, at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. I never used SLIME. I even don't know what is it. If you think it is far superior to what we have in pharo, please feel free to open our eyes, and direct us towards better system.
SWANK is a kind of interface/protocol between an advanced/extended editor and a running Lisp system/image. SLIME is a mode for Emacs to interact with a (possibly remote) Lisp using SWANK. It is quite impressive.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLIME]
Although sadly this discussion is derailing a bit, it _is_ interesting. The question of what makes Smalltalk such a nice environment to work in is hard to answer.
Yes, the image and the way source code is handled is a very important part of that, but it is also true that it is all just source code that could be stored in files outside an image.Yes, the Smalltalk IDE and tools are very good, but it is also true that many environments offer similar and sometimes even better tools.
Emacs is my main editor as well, I use vi occasionally, I have a long background in Lisp, for a brief period I worked a bit on real old school Symbolics Lisp machines.
Although LispWorks [http://www.lispworks.com] is the closest thing to (Pharo) Smalltalk as an IDE, and although I have a production Lisp image that has been running for more than 2 years, it still does _not_ feel the same as working in Smalltalk. There is something magical there that does create a very good illusion that you really are interacting directly with live objects.
Sven
PS: I too sometimes curse the current editor and/or completion, but since all you do is editing short pieces of code, it does not make any difference. Navigating code and/or the live system makes all the difference.
-- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill
the bottom line is that lisp has been the basis where Smalltalk was founded in the first place. Foremost the idea of "code is data and data is code" is something that Smalltalk and Lisp as been founded on. Alan Kay praised Lisp and in several case afterall and said how much he was inspired by it. And many opened minded Lispers praise Smalltalk too. True there a lot of diffirence in both languages but if I could find one enviroment, one IDE close to Squeak and Pharo that would be Lisp with Emacs and slime. Even the essence of image exists in lisp and like smalltalk lisp puts loads of emphasis on live coding. Does it feel the same ? No but then it takes even the slightest change to make a diffirence in that feeling. But its very hard to deny that those two (smalltalk and lisp) are close and extremely distant from anything else out there. I am still torn between lisp and smalltalk myself. I am a huge fan of live coding enviroments and its so hard to choose because both are so great. Maybe I should keep using both I guess. But yes I dont think there is any point of creating a Emacs / Lisp vs Pharo / Smalltalk discussion . Both are great in their own way and both are extremely successful in what they try to accomplish. I probably will end up using both for a very very long time :D ________________________________ From: Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 10:21 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Emacs and Smalltalk code On 09 Oct 2012, at 00:47, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. I never used SLIME. I even don't know what is it. If you think it is far superior to what we have in pharo, please feel free to open our eyes, and direct us towards better system.
SWANK is a kind of interface/protocol between an advanced/extended editor and a running Lisp system/image. SLIME is a mode for Emacs to interact with a (possibly remote) Lisp using SWANK. It is quite impressive. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLIME] Although sadly this discussion is derailing a bit, it _is_ interesting. The question of what makes Smalltalk such a nice environment to work in is hard to answer. Yes, the image and the way source code is handled is a very important part of that, but it is also true that it is all just source code that could be stored in files outside an image.Yes, the Smalltalk IDE and tools are very good, but it is also true that many environments offer similar and sometimes even better tools. Emacs is my main editor as well, I use vi occasionally, I have a long background in Lisp, for a brief period I worked a bit on real old school Symbolics Lisp machines. Although LispWorks [http://www.lispworks.com] is the closest thing to (Pharo) Smalltalk as an IDE, and although I have a production Lisp image that has been running for more than 2 years, it still does _not_ feel the same as working in Smalltalk. There is something magical there that does create a very good illusion that you really are interacting directly with live objects. Sven PS: I too sometimes curse the current editor and/or completion, but since all you do is editing short pieces of code, it does not make any difference. Navigating code and/or the live system makes all the difference. -- Sven Van Caekenberghe http://stfx.eu Smalltalk is the Red Pill
Thanks guys for your replies. On Oct 8, 2012, at 15:02 , Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code.
Relax guys. I known that when programming in Pharo, it is better to use the built-in browser, like Nautilus. However in some cases, I have a Smalltalk file (.st) outside the image, and I just want to see the code and not installing (file-in, compiling, â¦) it. That is the reason, why asking for emacs. Cheers.
On 8 October 2012 20:13, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
Thanks guys for your replies.
On Oct 8, 2012, at 15:02 , Frank Shearar <frank.shearar@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 October 2012 18:31, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
Pharo/Smalltalk is not meant to be coded in Emacs, you have to use Pharo currently (that may change in the future).
For shame, Damien. Why is Smalltalk not meant to be coded in a text editor? It is text, after all. Next thing you'll suggest that one shouldn't use git to store one's code.
Relax guys. I known that when programming in Pharo, it is better to use the built-in browser, like Nautilus. However in some cases, I have a Smalltalk file (.st) outside the image, and I just want to see the code and not installing (file-in, compiling, â¦) it. That is the reason, why asking for emacs.
you can browse the code in pharo without loading it. just drag file into image window and choose 'browse' in menu which will popup .
Cheers.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On Oct 8, 2012, at 15:23 , Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
you can browse the code in pharo without loading it. just drag file into image window and choose 'browse' in menu which will popup .
Very nice, thanks for the tip. However, I still see the code in black-&-white :-( Cheers
On 8 October 2012 15:51, Oscar E A Callaú <oalvarez@dcc.uchile.cl> wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using Aquamacs (mac UI for emacs) as my default editor. But I have a problem, when trying to read a .st file, I don't get the syntax highlighting (so all is black-&-white). How I can solve this issue?
I use GNU Smalltalk's smalltalk-mode. These instructions should see you on your way: http://www.cs.utah.edu/dept/old/texinfo/mst/mst.html#SEC7 I hope! frank
Cheers.
participants (9)
-
Camillo Bruni -
Craig Latta -
Damien Cassou -
dimitris chloupis -
Frank Shearar -
Igor Stasenko -
Oscar E A Callaú -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sven Van Caekenberghe