4 ms·
In general I agree, except for the IDE part. Every single IDE I haven ever used have better editor that Smalltalk IDE. Not being able to use your own editor, w
by markokocic 15y ago
In general I agree, except for the IDE part. Every single IDE I haven ever used have better editor that Smalltalk IDE.
Not being able to use your own editor, whichever it is, and being forced to use something that is basically equivalent to plain old browser textarea is a showstopper for calling Smalltalk environments pleasant.
Maybe Gnu Smalltalk is a cure to that, since it doesn't have live image and you can use whichever editor you like, but that kinda defeats most of the benefits of Smalltalk.
- amjith 15y agoTrue. I've had trouble with that as well when starting up. But later on I found I'm not writing methods that are larger than 10 lines (longest being 20 lines) in Smalltalk, which makes it tolerable. Still no ideal. I hear that SqueakVM has a package called nvi that can emulate Vi keybindings as well as emacs keybindings.
- gecko 15y agoSqueak and Pharo used to have a really great (for some value of "great", anyway) Vim emulator you could use in place of the default editor, but the hacks to enable it ran so deep that it doesn't run well anymore. The good news is that Pharo's GUI is increasingly clean and less crufty, which ought to make reintroducing a similar package feasible for the first time in years, if anyone were up to it.
- rue 15y agoIt should be possible to simply embed or shell out the editing to an external program… I think this'd be the ideal solution.
- gnaritas 15y ago> that is basically equivalent to plain old browser textarea is a showstopper for calling Smalltalk environments pleasant. That's hardly an apt description. My Smalltalk environment has intellisense, auto-complete, syntax highlighting, and automated refactoring. I use Pharo.
- eternalban 15y agoBack in the day QKS Smalltalk Agents had a really nice IDE. (90s). Wonder what happened to QKS ...