Personally I think the direction Moose is going is the right one, with visualising code for understanding its overall structure. I do think however that a system can help a user understand is an AI system, not in the strict sense of the word but a system that can understand user needs and act accordingly. Something like the Star Trek computer, where you can talk to a computer and reply back. Coding was great so far but it has become too complicated for mere humans to manage. So I think if Pharo is the future then we need to focus more and invest more on intelligent software, not software that is build in intelligent way but rather a software that can evolve and react to user's needs. This wont be easy or a short term goal. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Sven Van Caekenberghe-2 wrote
Open source means nothing if you cannot read the code, do not understand it, cannot change it - easily.
Yes!!! This is why just open sourcing a bad idea like an OS (see GNU/Linux) doesn't cut it. Even though theoretically you have access to the whole system, you can judge the practicality of doing so by looking at how few people actually do so. Compare that with Smalltalk, where it seems a rarity to find someone who /doesn't/ take advantage of modifying the core (granted Smalltalkers are somewhat self-selected). The system must be distilled down and unified until it is easily understandable and changeable by a single person. We'll know we're there when we have the equivalent functionality of "an OS + Standard Suite of Common Applications" in which it is commonplace for users to dig down and modify any level.
----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Can-Pharo-meet-all-your-computing-needs-tp4774250p4774... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.