4 ms·

Which is why Smalltalk's refactoring browser has a manual intervention step to allow you to see what it proposes to do, and remove any steps you don't agree wit

Which is why Smalltalk's refactoring browser has a manual intervention step to allow you to see what it proposes to do, and remove any steps you don't agree with, as well as the ability to scope your refactorings to a package or class to limit the scope to more relevant data. Either way, it's sufficient to get 99% of the benefits of automated refactorings without the 100% guarantee static typing provides; good enough for me. Automated refactoring was invented in Smalltalk, claiming it's a benefit only static typing provides is to not know history.

igouy 9y ago
> Automated refactoring was invented in Smalltalk, claiming it's a benefit only static typing provides is to not know history. History: In Bill Opdyke's thesis work, the tooling was written for C++ and written in CLOS. http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/opdyke-thesis.pdf http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/opdyke-thesis.pdf
- gnaritas 9y ago
  Ralph Johnson, a prominent Smalltalk'er, was advisor on that paper and was the creator of the first Smalltalk refactoring browser and that paper is littered with references to how things are done in Smalltalk. I was unaware a C++ was involved, but I still think Smalltalk had the first commercial refactoring browser. A research paper is not a product, however, thanks for the ref.
  - igouy 9y ago
    Do you think having "the first commercial refactoring browser" is the same as "[a]utomated refactoring was invented in Smalltalk" ;-) Incidentally, what's your source for "Ralph Johnson… was the creator of the first Smalltalk refactoring browser" ?
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      Don't be a douche, obviously I don't think it's the same hence my comment. And I'm willing to bet, same as you, my source was Google to verify my memory of something I read long ago.
      - igouy 9y ago
        If I'd read it as obvious I wouldn't have made that comment: your name-calling is unhelpful. We still don't know if you simply confabulated your other claim.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        I didn't name call, saying don't be something isn't remotely the same as saying you are something. If someone tells you don't be a jerk, they're not calling you a jerk, they're warning you you're nearing that point. We're done, good will has exited the building, there's no point in continuing.

igouy 9y ago

> Automated refactoring was invented in Smalltalk, claiming it's a benefit only static typing provides is to not know history. History: In Bill Opdyke's thesis work, the tooling was written for C++ and written in CLOS. http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/opdyke-thesis.pdf http://www.laputan.org/pub/papers/opdyke-thesis.pdf

gnaritas 9y ago
Ralph Johnson, a prominent Smalltalk'er, was advisor on that paper and was the creator of the first Smalltalk refactoring browser and that paper is littered with references to how things are done in Smalltalk. I was unaware a C++ was involved, but I still think Smalltalk had the first commercial refactoring browser. A research paper is not a product, however, thanks for the ref.
- igouy 9y ago
  Do you think having "the first commercial refactoring browser" is the same as "[a]utomated refactoring was invented in Smalltalk" ;-) Incidentally, what's your source for "Ralph Johnson… was the creator of the first Smalltalk refactoring browser" ?
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    Don't be a douche, obviously I don't think it's the same hence my comment. And I'm willing to bet, same as you, my source was Google to verify my memory of something I read long ago.
    - igouy 9y ago
      If I'd read it as obvious I wouldn't have made that comment: your name-calling is unhelpful. We still don't know if you simply confabulated your other claim.
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        I didn't name call, saying don't be something isn't remotely the same as saying you are something. If someone tells you don't be a jerk, they're not calling you a jerk, they're warning you you're nearing that point. We're done, good will has exited the building, there's no point in continuing.