xkriva11

10 ms·

91.
by xkriva11 4y ago
XULRunner was a great idea. It allowed us to create good-looking desktop applications with a native look&feel with an option to embed HTML and SVG content with only a simple server application. Before it was killed, I created two techno
92.
by xkriva11 4y ago
I like it is not using uppercase keywords. Is the grammar still LL(1)?
93.
by xkriva11 4y ago
https://github.com/svenvc/P3
94.
by xkriva11 4y ago
A blog post about playing with Boot/Root, the first Linux distribution, using images from this server: https://github.com/pavel-krivanek/articles/blob/master/BootR...
95.
by xkriva11 4y ago
I'm missing a few other items on this list that I use daily in Pharo - being able to open the debugger directly from the program. What the "debugger" command does in JavaScript. Conditional breakpoints are easier to work with
96.
Playing with the first Linux distribution (Boot/Root)(github.com)
1 points by xkriva11 4y ago|0 comments
97.
by xkriva11 4y ago
Unless you are a complete beginner, i.e. you have already tried writing small procedural programs, spending a few days with Smalltalk won't hurt. It would be good to get the hang of it over time anyway, and in Smalltalk the basics of O
98.
by xkriva11 4y ago
GoodReads book review: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/18480679
99.
It's behind you – The making of a computer Game(bizzley.com)
2 points by xkriva11 4y ago|1 comments
100.
by xkriva11 4y ago
JonesForth ( https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth/blob/master/jonesfort... )
101.
by xkriva11 4y ago
I personally think that one reason why Alan lost his interrest in Squeak was partly based on the community that was too conservative and too much Smalltalk-80 oriented - while Smalltalk does not fit into his vision well already since 1976.
102.
by xkriva11 4y ago
No, it should not: A couple of years ago, we started this project called Squeak, which is simply not an attempt to give the world a free Smalltalk, but an attempt to give the world a bootstrapping mechanism for something much better tha
103.
by xkriva11 4y ago
> So how can you say some other aspect is more important :-) My opinions only :-) > (Please provide some explanation of what you think is important about " method is the basic unit".) I think it has many interesting conseque
104.
by xkriva11 4y ago
> Good? Bad? Unimportant? It was not me who wrote that so I do not know his meaing. > Are there method definitions outside the context of a class? As I said above, I was talking about the basic compilation unit and it is simplified pe
105.
by xkriva11 4y ago
Meaning the basic compilation unit.
106.
by xkriva11 4y ago
The more important aspect of the Smalltalk approach is that the method is the basic unit (like having one source file per method). The difference is that the grammar of the transit file is not the language's grammar.
107.
by xkriva11 4y ago
Ad multi-user Forth, I have a question, and you may know the answer. In the Forth history on forth.com, they write: "By the late 1980s, polyFORTH users such as NCR were supporting as many as 150 users on a single 80386-based PC."
108.
by xkriva11 4y ago
Yes, the evaluation of the code needs to be possible from everywhere. From the REPL window, the code editor, the debugger, and the inspector... Any code you select should be possible to evaluate in place. It is more than four decades old ob
109.
by xkriva11 4y ago
Pharo has provided images without GUI and IDE for a long time. They are just not a default download option.
110.
There is no correlation between programming language and defect injection rate(twitter.com)
6 points by xkriva11 4y ago|8 comments
111.
by xkriva11 4y ago
In Smalltalk, it is just probe message without any brackets, and you can write a+b which is the message + send to a with argument b. You just have message passing syntax for everything (Smalltalk has minimal syntax comparable to Common Lisp
112.
by xkriva11 4y ago
In most cases, it is really only an implementation technique, but it may be different. In my eyes, sending a message to a probe on Mars is very different from evaluating a function with the probe as an argument. It's sure that, in this
113.
by xkriva11 4y ago
...or a b c f because all the parentheses are unnecessary too (Forth nudge ;-) ) I think that Smalltalk deserves a little bit of opened mind here. In many respects, it is the closest thing to Lisp machines experience you can get today.
114.
Creating Spaces by Opening Dimensions(blog.rfox.eu)
3 points by xkriva11 4y ago|0 comments
115.
Doing with images makes symbols (1987) [video](youtube.com)
1 points by xkriva11 4y ago|0 comments
116.
by xkriva11 4y ago
In classical Smalltalk, there is no difference between development time and runtime. Everything, including system code modification, needs to be done in runtime. There is no difference between a running program and a development environment
117.
ZX Spectrum is 40(theregister.com)
14 points by xkriva11 5y ago|0 comments
118.
by xkriva11 5y ago
I ported many projects between different Smalltalk versions, and I never had a bit of feeling that the image concept caused the related issues. Smalltalk implementations are just doing some things differently. The language ANSI standard is
119.
by xkriva11 5y ago
I must disagree. Image concept is just a tool, and it only depends on how you use it. In Smalltalk, you can modify the "base-objects" and assign these changes to your package and export them with the other sources (managed by Git,
120.
by xkriva11 5y ago
It still has many cool features that are not common elsewhere, and it is still evolving ( https://pharo.org/features , the list does not mention some things like object-centric debugging). And yes, it can pay your bills.

More ›