Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Bowling for Smalltalk

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Lawrence
    ... snowed in, so I tried it. The results were good ... and very thought-provoking. Last around that we did the bowling thing on this list (about 18 months ago
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 25, 2004
      > I had this cool idea for another way for Bowling to work. I'm
      snowed in, so I tried it. The results were good ... and very
      thought-provoking.


      Last around that we did the bowling thing on this list (about 18 months
      ago IIRC) I came up with a solution that was not too dissimilar from this.

      In mine, the Game object keeps a pointer to the head of the list and the
      current frame which it increments if a frame says it is done :

      public void bowl(int pins) {
      if(currentFrame.isDone() && ! currentFrame.isLastFrame()) {
      currentFrame = currentFrame.getNext();
      }

      currentFrame.addBall(pins);
      }


      The current frame applies bonuses to the two previous frames :

      private void applyBonuses(int pins) {
      if (isDone() && isLastFrame()) {
      addBonusBall(pins);
      }

      if (! isFirstFrame() ) {
      previous.addBonusBall(pins);
      if (! previous.isFirstFrame() ) {
      previous.previous.addBonusBall(pins);
      }
      }
      }

      I too have a bonus ball counter that gets incremented :

      if(isStrike()){
      bonusBallsNeeded = 2;
      }
      else if(isSpare()){
      bonusBallsNeeded = 1;
      }

      and decremented :

      private void addBonusBall(int pins) {
      if(bonusBallsNeeded > 0){

      if(isLastFrame()){
      balls[ballsBowled++] = pins;
      }

      bonusBallsNeeded--;
      score += pins;
      }
      }

      Note that I kept track of the individual balls because I ended up with a
      command line UI for an interactive game and wanted to print a full
      scorecard. I also did a JSP version but that seems to be lost in the
      sands of time.


      I got to my solution in much the same way that you did :

      1. I started with everything in Game.
      2. Decided Game was doing too much and switched to an array of frame objects
      3. Decided a linked list would be better because, without it, the Game
      object wanted to know too much about scoring.


      IIRC you didn't like my solution at all because you thought the
      recursion was unnatural ;-)

      public int getScore() {
      return isFirstFrame()
      ? score
      : previous.getScore() + score;
      }


      I got to my Java solution much the way you did. I'll agree that your
      Smalltalk version looks much more natural than mine since you don't have
      all the punctuation overhead - but the overall 'shape' is very similar.

      I find your speculation about how you would not have reached the same
      solution in Java thought-provoking. You seem to allow the 'idiom' of the
      language that you are working with to constrain you more than I do and I
      wonder if that is because I work predominately with one language all the
      time. I try to make an effort to learn other languages - I learn one a
      year in accordance with the Pragmatic Recommendations - but, because I
      don't use those other languages frequently enough I forget them just as
      quickly. But the idoms rom the other languages seem to stick with me. I
      think I wrote my bowling game just after trying to learn Lisp and the
      recursion stuck with me (but not the functional approach oddly enough).

      I have read all the arguments for dynamic typing and against dynamic
      typing and agree with them all - although I think they are a liitle
      over-stated. But no-one ever seems to touch on what I see as the biggest
      weakness of dynamic typing. When I learned Ruby, I had to keep switching
      to the manual to find a class or a method. I have become so accustomed
      to the magic that IntelliJ works that when I use any other
      language/editor it is like going back into the old days. Most of
      IntelliJ's tricks make heavy use of Java's typing and I don't know how
      they would be possible in a dynamic language. I learned Smalltalk in
      squeak and found the browser very hard to work with - maybe I should try
      a more modern browser ?

      It's also odd that I am writing about bowling in Java on Christmas
      morning when I should be playing with my children :-p

      Kevin
    • Ron Jeffries
      Messages coming out of order here. Odd. ... That /is/ interesting. I don t recall the discussion ... ... I wonder if part of my issue was that it goes
      Message 2 of 24 , Dec 26, 2004
        Messages coming out of order here. Odd.

        On Saturday, December 25, 2004, at 2:05:51 PM, Kevin Lawrence wrote:

        > I got to my solution in much the same way that you did :

        > 1. I started with everything in Game.
        > 2. Decided Game was doing too much and switched to an array of frame objects
        > 3. Decided a linked list would be better because, without it, the Game
        > object wanted to know too much about scoring.


        > IIRC you didn't like my solution at all because you thought the
        > recursion was unnatural ;-)

        That /is/ interesting. I don't recall the discussion ...

        > public int getScore() {
        > return isFirstFrame()
        > ? score
        > : previous.getScore() + score;
        > }

        I wonder if part of my issue was that it goes backwards, which to me
        doesn't obviously work, though of course it does.

        It also shows a dark side to developing solo, which is that you
        (well, I) can get locked in on one viewpoint. That's why I enjoy
        working this same problem so many different ways. Keeps the joints
        limber.

        > I got to my Java solution much the way you did. I'll agree that your
        > Smalltalk version looks much more natural than mine since you don't have
        > all the punctuation overhead - but the overall 'shape' is very similar.

        Yes ...

        > I find your speculation about how you would not have reached the same
        > solution in Java thought-provoking. You seem to allow the 'idiom' of the
        > language that you are working with to constrain you more than I do and I
        > wonder if that is because I work predominately with one language all the
        > time. I try to make an effort to learn other languages - I learn one a
        > year in accordance with the Pragmatic Recommendations - but, because I
        > don't use those other languages frequently enough I forget them just as
        > quickly. But the idoms rom the other languages seem to stick with me. I
        > think I wrote my bowling game just after trying to learn Lisp and the
        > recursion stuck with me (but not the functional approach oddly enough).

        Yes, that is interesting! I don't think of myself as "allowing" the
        language style to affect me, but quite likely it is. And certainly
        I'm far less adept at Java / C# than I ever was at Smalltalk, C,
        Pascal, or (gack) C++. So it might be that in Java / C# I hold back
        from unfamiliarity.

        > I have read all the arguments for dynamic typing and against dynamic
        > typing and agree with them all - although I think they are a liitle
        > over-stated. But no-one ever seems to touch on what I see as the biggest
        > weakness of dynamic typing. When I learned Ruby, I had to keep switching
        > to the manual to find a class or a method. I have become so accustomed
        > to the magic that IntelliJ works that when I use any other
        > language/editor it is like going back into the old days. Most of
        > IntelliJ's tricks make heavy use of Java's typing and I don't know how
        > they would be possible in a dynamic language. I learned Smalltalk in
        > squeak and found the browser very hard to work with - maybe I should try
        > a more modern browser ?

        I spoke to this in a reply to a reply: I do like the intellisense or
        equivalent capability, where the system pops up a list of what one
        might be talking about. In Smalltalk one gets that same information
        a different way, by opening a browser on the class in question.
        That's still less helpful, I'd grant. I think I prefer Smalltalk
        because of the other help it gives: the ready access to browsers,
        the incremental compilation and coding in the debugger, and the
        clarity yet compactness of the language itself. YMMV, of course.

        > It's also odd that I am writing about bowling in Java on Christmas
        > morning when I should be playing with my children :-p

        It is. As my kids are about your age, I only got to play with them
        in the afternoon and evening.

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        This is how I develop software.
        Take the parts that make sense to you.
        Ignore the rest.
      • Doug Swartz
        ... When I walk around the office (and when I program myself), you can tell which pairs are working in Smalltalk and which ones are working in Java from a
        Message 3 of 24 , Dec 26, 2004
          Sunday, December 26, 2004, 6:12:25 AM, Ron Jeffries wrote:


          >> I have read all the arguments for dynamic typing and against dynamic
          >> typing and agree with them all - although I think they are a liitle
          >> over-stated. But no-one ever seems to touch on what I see as the biggest
          >> weakness of dynamic typing. When I learned Ruby, I had to keep switching
          >> to the manual to find a class or a method. I have become so accustomed
          >> to the magic that IntelliJ works that when I use any other
          >> language/editor it is like going back into the old days. Most of
          >> IntelliJ's tricks make heavy use of Java's typing and I don't know how
          >> they would be possible in a dynamic language. I learned Smalltalk in
          >> squeak and found the browser very hard to work with - maybe I should try
          >> a more modern browser ?

          > I spoke to this in a reply to a reply: I do like the intellisense or
          > equivalent capability, where the system pops up a list of what one
          > might be talking about. In Smalltalk one gets that same information
          > a different way, by opening a browser on the class in question.
          > That's still less helpful, I'd grant. I think I prefer Smalltalk
          > because of the other help it gives: the ready access to browsers,
          > the incremental compilation and coding in the debugger, and the
          > clarity yet compactness of the language itself. YMMV, of course.

          When I walk around the office (and when I program myself), you
          can tell which pairs are working in Smalltalk and which ones
          are working in Java from a pretty good distance, because the
          Smalltalk developers always have multiple windows open. The
          Java folks generally seem constrained to a single box on the
          screen.

          This difference predates the cool recent additions such as
          Intellisense, and dates back to when C++ and Smalltalk were
          the dominant OO languages.

          For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
          developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.


          --

          Doug Swartz
          daswartz@...
        • Victor
          ... Actually, .Net has. It s an improvement, but ST is still better. :-) .Net has the embarrassment of riches. Confusing riches. .Net has a lot of effort
          Message 4 of 24 , Dec 26, 2004
            > For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
            > developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.

            Actually, .Net has. It's an improvement, but ST is still better. :-)
            .Net has the embarrassment of riches. Confusing riches. .Net has a lot of
            effort put in connectivity between disparate organizations of ideas, but
            could benefit from a better single unifying idea, which one of ST's
            strengths.

            Victor

            ==================================


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Doug Swartz" <daswartz@...>
            To: "Ron Jeffries" <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 6:41 PM
            Subject: Re[2]: [XP] Bowling for Smalltalk


            >
            >
            > Sunday, December 26, 2004, 6:12:25 AM, Ron Jeffries wrote:
            >
            >
            > >> I have read all the arguments for dynamic typing and against dynamic
            > >> typing and agree with them all - although I think they are a liitle
            > >> over-stated. But no-one ever seems to touch on what I see as the
            biggest
            > >> weakness of dynamic typing. When I learned Ruby, I had to keep
            switching
            > >> to the manual to find a class or a method. I have become so accustomed
            > >> to the magic that IntelliJ works that when I use any other
            > >> language/editor it is like going back into the old days. Most of
            > >> IntelliJ's tricks make heavy use of Java's typing and I don't know how
            > >> they would be possible in a dynamic language. I learned Smalltalk in
            > >> squeak and found the browser very hard to work with - maybe I should
            try
            > >> a more modern browser ?
            >
            > > I spoke to this in a reply to a reply: I do like the intellisense or
            > > equivalent capability, where the system pops up a list of what one
            > > might be talking about. In Smalltalk one gets that same information
            > > a different way, by opening a browser on the class in question.
            > > That's still less helpful, I'd grant. I think I prefer Smalltalk
            > > because of the other help it gives: the ready access to browsers,
            > > the incremental compilation and coding in the debugger, and the
            > > clarity yet compactness of the language itself. YMMV, of course.
            >
            > When I walk around the office (and when I program myself), you
            > can tell which pairs are working in Smalltalk and which ones
            > are working in Java from a pretty good distance, because the
            > Smalltalk developers always have multiple windows open. The
            > Java folks generally seem constrained to a single box on the
            > screen.
            >
            > This difference predates the cool recent additions such as
            > Intellisense, and dates back to when C++ and Smalltalk were
            > the dominant OO languages.
            >
            > For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
            > developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.
            >
            >
            > --
            >
            > Doug Swartz
            > daswartz@...
            >
            >
            >
            > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
            >
            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
            >
            > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Ron Jeffries
            ... Yes. I m noticing that it s taking me a little time to get back into it. The problem is exacerbated by the need to flip back and forth to my article
            Message 5 of 24 , Dec 26, 2004
              On Sunday, December 26, 2004, at 6:41:43 PM, Doug Swartz wrote:

              > This difference predates the cool recent additions such as
              > Intellisense, and dates back to when C++ and Smalltalk were
              > the dominant OO languages.

              > For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
              > developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.

              Yes. I'm noticing that it's taking me a little time to get back into
              it. The problem is exacerbated by the need to flip back and forth to
              my article editor. I suppose I should just cascade it with the rest.

              Do you use Windows Alt+Tab to switch windows now? Or the mouse?

              Ron Jeffries
              www.XProgramming.com
              How do I know what I think until I hear what I say? -- E M Forster
            • Ron Jeffries
              ... It has? I didn t know that. What version? How do I turn that on? Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com I have tried in my way to be free. -- Leonard Cohen
              Message 6 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                On Sunday, December 26, 2004, at 7:14:18 PM, Victor wrote:

                >> For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
                >> developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.

                > Actually, .Net has.

                It has? I didn't know that. What version? How do I turn that on?

                Ron Jeffries
                www.XProgramming.com
                I have tried in my way to be free. -- Leonard Cohen
              • Robert Watkins
                ... Hmmm... I m not sure I get what you re talking about here. In the Java IDEs I ve used, you typically have lots of different windows open. They re usually
                Message 7 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                  Doug Swartz wrote:
                  > When I walk around the office (and when I program myself), you
                  > can tell which pairs are working in Smalltalk and which ones
                  > are working in Java from a pretty good distance, because the
                  > Smalltalk developers always have multiple windows open. The
                  > Java folks generally seem constrained to a single box on the
                  > screen.

                  Hmmm... I'm not sure I get what you're talking about here.

                  In the Java IDEs I've used, you typically have lots of different windows
                  open. They're usually docked, admittedly, but they're open and on the screen.

                  In my Eclipse IDE at the moment, I've got a package/file explorer, an
                  outline view, a JUnit view, an Ant runner view, and a task view. Most of
                  these are docked, and have other tabs available in each dock (such as a
                  type hierarchy, a problems view, a console window, and a CVS
                  synchronisation view). Oh, and the editor window in the centre.

                  In IntelliJ and NetBeans, I've used similar views. Most of these can float
                  if you want, but with a single monitor I tend to like them docked. When
                  I've got multiple monitors available, detaching some of them (particularly
                  the more information-oriented ones) over to the other monitors makes a lot
                  of sense.

                  Although it's been some years now since I worked in C++, I recall that MS
                  Visual Studio had _some_ of this at least.


                  --
                  "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
                  Robert Watkins http://twasink.net/ robertdw@...
                • Ron Jeffries
                  ... In the Eclipse I m familiar with, there is at most one source window open, plus some random hierarchies and such. In VS.NET, there are perhaps many source
                  Message 8 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                    On Monday, December 27, 2004, at 6:46:05 AM, Robert Watkins wrote:

                    > In my Eclipse IDE at the moment, I've got a package/file explorer, an
                    > outline view, a JUnit view, an Ant runner view, and a task view. Most of
                    > these are docked, and have other tabs available in each dock (such as a
                    > type hierarchy, a problems view, a console window, and a CVS
                    > synchronisation view). Oh, and the editor window in the centre.

                    > In IntelliJ and NetBeans, I've used similar views. Most of these can float
                    > if you want, but with a single monitor I tend to like them docked. When
                    > I've got multiple monitors available, detaching some of them (particularly
                    > the more information-oriented ones) over to the other monitors makes a lot
                    > of sense.

                    In the Eclipse I'm familiar with, there is at most one source window
                    open, plus some random hierarchies and such. In VS.NET, there are
                    perhaps many source windows, but they are behind tabs, again with
                    only one visible. Next time I'm Smalltalking, I'll try to remember
                    to snapshot my screen: it looks very different from the C# or Java
                    setups that I'm familiar with.

                    Ron Jeffries
                    www.XProgramming.com
                    If it is more than you need, it is waste. -- Andy Seidl
                  • Gary Feldman
                    ... VS.Net works in two modes, tab mode or MDI mode. You can switch from one to the other via the options dialog (and then restarting VS.Net). In tab mode,
                    Message 9 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                      Ron Jeffries wrote:

                      > open, plus some random hierarchies and such. In VS.NET, there are
                      > perhaps many source windows, but they are behind tabs, again with
                      > only one visible. Next time I'm Smalltalking, I'll try to remember

                      VS.Net works in two modes, tab mode or MDI mode. You can switch from one to the other via the options dialog (and then restarting VS.Net).

                      In tab mode, you can create additional tab groups, though as near as I can figure, you only have a choice of tiling them vertically or horizontally, but not mixed horizontal and vertical, and not overlapping. The document windows are always tiled to fill the center space. You can also split any document pane, so that you can see two parts of the same document within the pane. This latter feature has been in Visual Studio for years, long before .Net. I'm not sure about the others.

                      MDI mode is the traditional Microsoft MDI mode that allows multiple child windows fully functional within the parent's window content area. Thus these can be overlapped, tiled, etc. It's not the default, and Microsoft seems to be moving away from this model. I'm not sure why, as I've always preferred it for other products (office suites), though I prefer the tabbed model for the VS IDE.

                      By the way, emacs has allowed multiple windows for years. This goes back to multiple panes back in the character cell days. I'm not sure when the ability to have multiple windows within the same process space got added, but it's been there for a while. You don't need a mouse for multiple windows (and, in fact, I find mouse-free environments to be much more efficient).

                      Finally, what I'd really like to try is an IDE that breaks away from the file-based model, so that windows are either coupled to classes or individual methods. I believe there was some research along these lines at Brown back in the eighties, but I haven't seen anything commercial. Does the Smalltalk environment support that? Anyone know whether Delphi does? (I've never used Delphi but have heard good things about it.)

                      Gary
                    • aacockburn
                      ... Could anyone please induce Mr. Beck to resurrect his object explorer program from the pre- ice age days? That iirc had the best lots of windows I ve ever
                      Message 10 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
                        <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
                        > On Sunday, December 26, 2004, at 7:14:18 PM, Victor wrote:
                        >
                        > >> For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
                        > >> developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.
                        >
                        > > Actually, .Net has.
                        >
                        > It has? I didn't know that. What version? How do I turn that on?
                        >


                        Could anyone please induce Mr. Beck to resurrect his object explorer
                        program from the pre- ice age days? That iirc had the best 'lots of
                        windows' I've ever seen.

                        Especially in Smalltalk, where the plurality of methods are 3 lines
                        of code or less, it seems a real waste to use up a whole browser
                        window per method.
                      • Ron Jeffries
                        ... I m not quite sure what you re looking for, but Smalltalk is entirely disconnected from the file-based model. There are no underlying files for your
                        Message 11 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                          On Monday, December 27, 2004, at 10:22:38 AM, Gary Feldman wrote:

                          > Finally, what I'd really like to try is an IDE that breaks away
                          > from the file-based model, so that windows
                          > are either coupled to classes or individual methods. I believe
                          > there was some research along these lines at
                          > Brown back in the eighties, but I haven't seen anything
                          > commercial. Does the Smalltalk environment support
                          > that?

                          I'm not quite sure what you're looking for, but Smalltalk is
                          entirely disconnected from the file-based model. There are no
                          underlying files for your classes, unless you explicitly save them,
                          such as for passing them on to other people or the like. And if you
                          do that, they're not connected in any way to your running code,
                          they're just filed-out copies of the state of the code at that
                          moment.

                          Ron Jeffries
                          www.XProgramming.com
                          The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                          is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
                        • Keith Ray
                          ... I *always* use multiple windows in MS VC++, XCode (Java/C++/ObjC), and Metrowerks CodeWarrior (Java/C++), sometimes even using the Metrowerks class browser
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                            >> For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
                            >> developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.

                            I *always* use multiple windows in MS VC++, XCode (Java/C++/ObjC), and
                            Metrowerks CodeWarrior (Java/C++), sometimes even using the Metrowerks
                            class browser (similar the classic Smalltalk class browser). I find
                            "tabbed/one-window" environments like JBuilder to be *very* confining.

                            --
                            C. Keith Ray
                            <http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/blog/index.html>
                            <http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/xpminifaq.html>
                            <http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/resume2.html>
                          • Robert Watkins
                            ... In Eclipse, there is one area that the editor windows go in. Inside the editor window, you can have an arbitary number of tab groups , arranged in various
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                              Ron Jeffries wrote:
                              > In the Eclipse I'm familiar with, there is at most one source window
                              > open, plus some random hierarchies and such. In VS.NET, there are
                              > perhaps many source windows, but they are behind tabs, again with
                              > only one visible. Next time I'm Smalltalking, I'll try to remember
                              > to snapshot my screen: it looks very different from the C# or Java
                              > setups that I'm familiar with.

                              In Eclipse, there is one area that the editor windows go in. Inside the
                              editor window, you can have an arbitary number of "tab groups", arranged in
                              various ways. Each tab group can have multiple files open, hidden behind tabs.

                              The bigger issue is the amount of screen real estate you need to make this
                              style of working effective. :)

                              Eclipse is modelled on Visual Age for Java, in many ways. VAJ, in turn, was
                              modelled on Visual Age for Smalltalk.

                              Robert.
                              --
                              "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
                              Robert Watkins http://twasink.net/ robertdw@...
                            • Robert Watkins
                              ... The atomic unit of editing (and versioning) in IBM s Visual Age for Java was the method. They only introduced a class view in the final version, in the
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                                Gary Feldman wrote:
                                > Finally, what I'd really like to try is an IDE that breaks away from the
                                > file-based model, so that windows are either coupled to classes or
                                > individual methods. I believe there was some research along these
                                > lines at Brown back in the eighties, but I haven't seen anything
                                > commercial. Does the Smalltalk environment support that? Anyone know
                                > whether Delphi does? (I've never used Delphi but have heard good things
                                > about it.)

                                The atomic unit of editing (and versioning) in IBM's Visual Age for Java
                                was the method. They only introduced a class view in the final version, in
                                the face of overwhelming demand.

                                There's a plugin for Eclipse to do something similar to the editor.

                                --
                                "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
                                Robert Watkins http://twasink.net/ robertdw@...
                              • Paul Jenkins
                                In Delphi, the editor is based around a unit (form/record/class), as in Microsoft products. The IDE is somewhat reminiscent of the default settimgs for
                                Message 15 of 24 , Dec 27, 2004
                                  In Delphi, the editor is based around a 'unit' (form/record/class), as in
                                  Microsoft products. The IDE is 'somewhat' reminiscent of the default
                                  settimgs for Visual Studio 3 with discrete windows on the desktop for
                                  properties, code, tool pallete etc. Kind of a similar arrangement to Cincom,
                                  but not nearly so sophisticated.

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Robert Watkins [mailto:yahoo@...]
                                  Sent: 27 December 2004 21:50
                                  To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [XP] Bowling for Smalltalk


                                  Gary Feldman wrote:
                                  > Finally, what I'd really like to try is an IDE that breaks away from
                                  > the file-based model, so that windows are either coupled to classes or
                                  > individual methods. I believe there was some research along these
                                  > lines at Brown back in the eighties, but I haven't seen anything >
                                  commercial. Does the Smalltalk environment support that? Anyone know >
                                  whether Delphi does? (I've never used Delphi but have heard good things >
                                  about it.)

                                  The atomic unit of editing (and versioning) in IBM's Visual Age for Java was
                                  the method. They only introduced a class view in the final version, in the
                                  face of overwhelming demand.

                                  There's a plugin for Eclipse to do something similar to the editor.

                                  --
                                  "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
                                  Robert Watkins http://twasink.net/ robertdw@...


                                  To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

                                  To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                                  extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

                                  ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
                                  Yahoo! Groups Links









                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Chris Hanson
                                  ... Actually, in the Macintosh world most IDEs only supported multiple source windows for most of the platform s history. And most Macintosh software was
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Dec 29, 2004
                                    On Dec 26, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Doug Swartz wrote:
                                    > This difference predates the cool recent additions such as
                                    > Intellisense, and dates back to when C++ and Smalltalk were
                                    > the dominant OO languages.
                                    >
                                    > For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
                                    > developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.

                                    Actually, in the Macintosh world most IDEs only supported multiple
                                    source windows for most of the platform's history. And most Macintosh
                                    software was developed in C++, not Smalltalk.

                                    The Macintosh also doesn't use the MDI paradigm -- that's probably the
                                    big differentiator when it comes to how IDEs will be constructed.
                                    Smalltalk may have been running on a platform with MDI for a long time,
                                    but it certainly wasn't created on one and the culture may never have
                                    embraced it. Windows IDEs and Java IDEs (running predominantly on
                                    Windows) were though.

                                    -- Chris
                                  • Ron Jeffries
                                    ... I look forward to reading it. Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Fear is the mindkiller. --Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Dec 29, 2004
                                      On Wednesday, December 29, 2004, at 9:55:24 AM, Stede Troisi wrote:

                                      > I would have had a BowlingResult class and a Frame
                                      > class. The Frame class would contain properties like
                                      > Strike or Spare. I decided to undertake this same task
                                      > written in the same style as Ron and post it on my web
                                      > site. It should be available in a few days.

                                      I look forward to reading it.

                                      Ron Jeffries
                                      www.XProgramming.com
                                      Fear is the mindkiller. --Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
                                    • R.Claeson
                                      ... From the very beginning, most Macintosh software was developed in Clascal (Pascal with classes) and in vanilla Pascal.
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Dec 29, 2004
                                        On 29 Dec 2004, at 13:23, Chris Hanson wrote:

                                        > On Dec 26, 2004, at 3:41 PM, Doug Swartz wrote:
                                        >> This difference predates the cool recent additions such as
                                        >> Intellisense, and dates back to when C++ and Smalltalk were
                                        >> the dominant OO languages.
                                        >>
                                        >> For whatever reason none of the other languages have ever
                                        >> developed the "multiple window" IDE approach.
                                        >
                                        > Actually, in the Macintosh world most IDEs only supported multiple
                                        > source windows for most of the platform's history. And most Macintosh
                                        > software was developed in C++, not Smalltalk.

                                        From the very beginning, most Macintosh software was developed in
                                        Clascal (Pascal with classes) and in "vanilla" Pascal.
                                      • Chris Hanson
                                        ... For the first few years. Things shifted pretty dramatically in the early 1990s. -- Chris -- who thinks the Smalltalkers would really enjoy Objective-C and
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Dec 30, 2004
                                          On Dec 29, 2004, at 10:28 PM, R.Claeson wrote:
                                          > On 29 Dec 2004, at 13:23, Chris Hanson wrote:
                                          >> Actually, in the Macintosh world most IDEs only supported multiple
                                          >> source windows for most of the platform's history. And most Macintosh
                                          >> software was developed in C++, not Smalltalk.
                                          >
                                          > From the very beginning, most Macintosh software was developed in
                                          > Clascal (Pascal with classes) and in "vanilla" Pascal.

                                          For the first few years. Things shifted pretty dramatically in the
                                          early 1990s.

                                          -- Chris
                                          -- who thinks the Smalltalkers would really enjoy Objective-C and
                                          Cocoa
                                        • R.Claeson
                                          ... For the record, I m a Smalltalker, but has been working with Nexststep, Openstep and now MacOS X and Objective C for over 10 years.
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Dec 30, 2004
                                            On 30 Dec 2004, at 11:38, Chris Hanson wrote:

                                            > For the first few years. Things shifted pretty dramatically in the
                                            > early 1990s.
                                            >
                                            > -- Chris
                                            > -- who thinks the Smalltalkers would really enjoy Objective-C and
                                            > Cocoa

                                            For the record, I'm a Smalltalker, but has been working with Nexststep,
                                            Openstep and now MacOS X and Objective C for over 10 years.
                                          • Ron Jeffries
                                            ... Compared to Java and C#, almost certainly. But compared to Smalltalk? It would surprise me, but I d like to know whether and why. Ron Jeffries
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Dec 30, 2004
                                              On Thursday, December 30, 2004, at 5:38:39 AM, Chris Hanson wrote:

                                              > For the first few years. Things shifted pretty dramatically in the
                                              > early 1990s.

                                              > -- Chris
                                              > -- who thinks the Smalltalkers would really enjoy Objective-C and
                                              > Cocoa

                                              Compared to Java and C#, almost certainly. But compared to
                                              Smalltalk? It would surprise me, but I'd like to know whether and
                                              why.

                                              Ron Jeffries
                                              www.XProgramming.com
                                              Master your instrument, master the music,
                                              and then forget all that *!xy!@ and just play. -- Charlie Parker
                                            • R.Claeson
                                              ... Ron, Nothing really compares to Smalltalk, but the combination of Objective C and Cocoa is about as good as it can get. However, I ve recently came across
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Dec 30, 2004
                                                On 30 Dec 2004, at 19:56, Ron Jeffries wrote:

                                                >
                                                > On Thursday, December 30, 2004, at 5:38:39 AM, Chris Hanson wrote:
                                                >
                                                >> For the first few years. Things shifted pretty dramatically in the
                                                >> early 1990s.
                                                >
                                                >> -- Chris
                                                >> -- who thinks the Smalltalkers would really enjoy Objective-C and
                                                >> Cocoa
                                                >
                                                > Compared to Java and C#, almost certainly. But compared to
                                                > Smalltalk? It would surprise me, but I'd like to know whether and
                                                > why.

                                                Ron,

                                                Nothing really compares to Smalltalk, but the combination of Objective
                                                C and Cocoa is about as good as it can get. However, I've recently came
                                                across a Smalltalk environment for MacOS X -- Ambrai Smalltalk. It's
                                                available at http://www.ambrai.com/

                                                Robert
                                              • Chris Dollin
                                                ... Do you mean you don t *see* it with more than one source window open, or that you think it can t *have* more than OSWO? Or do you really mean pane not
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Jan 6, 2005
                                                  On Monday 27 December 2004 12:40, Ron Jeffries wrote:

                                                  > In the Eclipse I'm familiar with, there is at most one source window
                                                  > open,

                                                  Do you mean you don't *see* it with more than one source window
                                                  open, or that you think it can't *have* more than OSWO? Or do
                                                  you really mean "pane" not "window" (in which case I'd argue that
                                                  you have *zero* source windows open, since the editor just shows
                                                  up as a pane of the All-Devouring Eclipse Megawindow).

                                                  (Bah, spit. I have a perfectly good window manager running, and
                                                  years of experience at using it, and Eclipse says "no, no, just
                                                  let me pane up your workspace for you sir, you'll be quite happy
                                                  I promise". Again, spit.)

                                                  --
                                                  Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
                                                • Ilja Preuss
                                                  ... If you use the Java Browsing perspective of vanilla Eclipse and activate Show Source Of Selected Element Only , you already get quite close. Cheers, Ilja
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , Jan 11, 2005
                                                    Robert Watkins wrote:

                                                    > The atomic unit of editing (and versioning) in IBM's Visual Age for
                                                    > Java was the method. They only introduced a class view in the final
                                                    > version, in the face of overwhelming demand.
                                                    >
                                                    > There's a plugin for Eclipse to do something similar to the editor.

                                                    If you use the Java Browsing perspective of vanilla Eclipse and activate
                                                    "Show Source Of Selected Element Only", you already get quite close.

                                                    Cheers, Ilja
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.