4 ms·

It is cool, but redline doesn't have the environment of smalltalk, just the language. Which, arguably, misses a LOT of the point of using smalltalk.

fusiongyro 13y ago
That isn't true. http://www.redline.st/discover/is-it-smalltalk.html http://www.redline.st/discover/is-it-smalltalk.html
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - fusiongyro 13y ago
    Feels like you didn't read the page I linked. You can do all of this: "navigate object graphs, edit them while the program runs, inspect UI elements and modify their behavior interactively, and so on." It just isn't persisted to an image. The OP is implying that Redline is just Smalltalk skin on a Java pig. That's not true, but if your goalposts for Smalltalk are "it must be Pharo" then, yeah, it isn't Pharo. This is basically the same unhelpful puritanical attitude that left Lisp basically dead from the end of the Lisp machine until PG started talking it up. It doesn't have to be the same to be good, or better than a lot of alternatives, or to count as a real Smalltalk. For what it's worth, not having Morphic is a huge win IMO. A UI built on something else that attempted to achieve the original goals of Morphic but with, say, a little actual OO design and architecture, would be way better than that disgusting, unlearnable mess.
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      > Redline is just Smalltalk skin on a Java pig. This is a seriously weird mixed metaphor. Normally the phrase is "lipstick on the pig," which makes a reasonable amount of sense: ostensibly women wear lipstick to look prettier. Pigs are ugly and won't look prettier even when they're wearing a prettying agent. Meanwhile, there's the term 'pigskin,' which is a term for an American football. Finally, pigs already have skins. This phrase conjures up some sort of horrible notions of the serial killer Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs for me. Very upsetting.
      - fusiongyro 13y ago
        What are you, the metaphor compiler? Do I need a fucking permit to write colorfully?
        nsxwolf 13y ago
        How does anyone downvote "What are you, the metaphor compiler?", regardless of context?

fusiongyro 13y ago

That isn't true. http://www.redline.st/discover/is-it-smalltalk.html http://www.redline.st/discover/is-it-smalltalk.html

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- fusiongyro 13y ago
  Feels like you didn't read the page I linked. You can do all of this: "navigate object graphs, edit them while the program runs, inspect UI elements and modify their behavior interactively, and so on." It just isn't persisted to an image. The OP is implying that Redline is just Smalltalk skin on a Java pig. That's not true, but if your goalposts for Smalltalk are "it must be Pharo" then, yeah, it isn't Pharo. This is basically the same unhelpful puritanical attitude that left Lisp basically dead from the end of the Lisp machine until PG started talking it up. It doesn't have to be the same to be good, or better than a lot of alternatives, or to count as a real Smalltalk. For what it's worth, not having Morphic is a huge win IMO. A UI built on something else that attempted to achieve the original goals of Morphic but with, say, a little actual OO design and architecture, would be way better than that disgusting, unlearnable mess.
  - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
    > Redline is just Smalltalk skin on a Java pig. This is a seriously weird mixed metaphor. Normally the phrase is "lipstick on the pig," which makes a reasonable amount of sense: ostensibly women wear lipstick to look prettier. Pigs are ugly and won't look prettier even when they're wearing a prettying agent. Meanwhile, there's the term 'pigskin,' which is a term for an American football. Finally, pigs already have skins. This phrase conjures up some sort of horrible notions of the serial killer Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs for me. Very upsetting.
    - fusiongyro 13y ago
      What are you, the metaphor compiler? Do I need a fucking permit to write colorfully?
      - nsxwolf 13y ago
        How does anyone downvote "What are you, the metaphor compiler?", regardless of context?