3 ms·

So let me get this straight: A programming environment to program programming environments in. What would be the startup cost of using this be? Hmm. Comprehendi

So let me get this straight: A programming environment to program programming environments in. What would be the startup cost of using this be? Hmm. Comprehending and navigating it, eh? So now, when I'm, say, doing embedded C/++ programming, I have to add yet another language to the stack, yet another toolkit, yet another environment _I have to build first_ with my preferences -- so that _another_ person getting into the project can not only use my environments, my toolkits, my code and comprehend those - but ALSO my hand built specialized for my needs programming environment? And this is supposed to _improve_ the situation? OK, I only skimmed the site, but mostly because above question keeps nagging me and the mind boggles. IOW, gtoolkit is today's sexy emacs (or, it claims to be what emacs claims/ed to be): Here's a toolkit for writing/extending/MOLDING your tool. Or, acknowledging it's smalltalk-heritaged, it's yet-another-smalltalk-IDE. It's not like the "extra work" of making your product explorable disappears with glamorous toolkit, the silver bullet. gtoolkit just offers a streamlined set of APIs for you to (comprehend, and navigate, and then) use to make your product explorable, doesn't it. So we add another layer of abstraction, work, and potential for error? What was that with complexity and abstraction? Hmm.

tudorgirba 6y ago
Thanks for voicing your concerns. The parallel to Emacs is quite on point. Emacs was a great for text, but it's about time to outgrow that medium. Indeed, Glamorous Toolkit is a Smalltalk system, but the target is for it to work with all sorts of other technologies (and it does already). And yes, the claim is to spend that extra work to build tools. I understand how that can appear as coming at an extra cost. But, here is the thing: the budget for figuring the system out is already allocated. Just in the same way as it was allocated for testing. When automatic testing became a talked-about proposition, people claimed they do not have time to spend doing it because they are already busy clicking around. It turned out that automation freed much of the energy to allow people to focus on more rewarding activities. Now, it's code reading's turn to be automated. Not all of it will. Code reading is still meaningful in the small. Glamorous Toolkit is a first technology that shows how this works in practical settings. It's not theoretical. Of course, it comes with a learning cost. We estimate: - about 1 week to learn how to learn (yes, the technology can be used to learn the technology, too :)), and - about 1 month to get reasonably fluent with initial analyses. This is an investment that should be judged like any other investment. The promise we make is that the investment can be utilized over and over in many different circumstances because moldable development is universally applicable. You should not believe it. We made the technology free and open-source together with all the material around it for people to evaluate it themselves.

tudorgirba 6y ago

Thanks for voicing your concerns. The parallel to Emacs is quite on point. Emacs was a great for text, but it's about time to outgrow that medium. Indeed, Glamorous Toolkit is a Smalltalk system, but the target is for it to work with all sorts of other technologies (and it does already). And yes, the claim is to spend that extra work to build tools. I understand how that can appear as coming at an extra cost. But, here is the thing: the budget for figuring the system out is already allocated. Just in the same way as it was allocated for testing. When automatic testing became a talked-about proposition, people claimed they do not have time to spend doing it because they are already busy clicking around. It turned out that automation freed much of the energy to allow people to focus on more rewarding activities. Now, it's code reading's turn to be automated. Not all of it will. Code reading is still meaningful in the small. Glamorous Toolkit is a first technology that shows how this works in practical settings. It's not theoretical. Of course, it comes with a learning cost. We estimate: - about 1 week to learn how to learn (yes, the technology can be used to learn the technology, too :)), and - about 1 month to get reasonably fluent with initial analyses. This is an investment that should be judged like any other investment. The promise we make is that the investment can be utilized over and over in many different circumstances because moldable development is universally applicable. You should not believe it. We made the technology free and open-source together with all the material around it for people to evaluate it themselves.