Sake = Rake for Smalltalk?

On 5/17/06, Lord ZealoN <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I haven't read all the mails but, why we would need something like a
> makefile?. I think squeak don't need it. Squeak don't have a
> edit-compile cycle, True?

Ruby doesn't either, and it has rake... I use it to build LaTeX
documents for instance. I'd like to use smalltalk to automate
out-of-smalltalk stuff, and to call smalltalk code from the command
line as simply as I can call whatever script.

--
 Damien Pollet
 type less, do more

>> Yes I know I thought about it too but I never liked the idea that  
>> sending a message would create
>> a method or a class. May be I'm too old fashioned :)
>
> Is there another way to do it?

I believe Stef was talking about:

Package MyNewPackage

vs.

Package declarePackage: #MyNewPackage


Both are plain Smalltalk expressions. But the intention behind the  
first one is not to send the message MyNewPackage to the object Package.

cheers,
Alexandre
--
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.cs.tcd.ie/Alexandre.Bergel
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

On 17 mai 06, at 00:34, Colin Putney wrote:

>
> On May 16, 2006, at 4:38 PM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
>
>> Yes I know I thought about it too but I never liked the idea that  
>> sending a message would create
>> a method or a class. May be I'm too old fashioned :)
>
> Is there another way to do it?

I meant a message that is not defined yet to create a pacakage

Package ColoredPointPackage
would not be known when you are defining it.
Sorry for the confusion.

Stef

>
> Colin
>

On 17 mai 06, at 09:13, Andreas Raab wrote:

> And yes, VW holds the all-time low in the signal to noise ratio of  
> class definitions ;-)

if you meant that this is a pretty ugly way to define classes with  
lot of stuff getting in your way.
I agree and close my eyes each time I program a class in VW....Hence  
my bugs :)

> >> Yes I know I thought about it too but I never liked the idea that  
> >> sending a message would create
> >> a method or a class. May be I'm too old fashioned :)
> Is there another way to do it?

To "define" a class nothing is required (you must write
 "source" code in a piece of paper/aTextFile).
If you want to create an object (like a class) you need
 to DO something, ... e.g. send a message.

Working with OOLanguages, only definition is possible
 (an required), because execution is not allowed when
 you are "there"; a computer/machive will do the work
 later in time (evading object creation if possible :-( ).
It is like writing a letter to God, talking about ideal objects...

Working IN smalltalk, computation/production is a side
 effect of a working environment. When you are in the
 environment, you must do(evaluate) actions and create
 classes/species (if it is possible at the moment of evaluation).
It is like working in real world.

The "doIt" instead of "defineIt" has important implications
 in systems development/creation.
Is is not a good/bad idea; it is a requirement to send
 messages. It is possible becasue the receiver is near your
 fingers and at the same time.
Building open systems (instead of closed/ideal systems)
 let you lower the risks of working declarativelly.

hope this help,
Ale.

On May 17, 2006, at 8:19 AM, stéphane ducasse wrote:

> I meant a message that is not defined yet to create a pacakage
>
> Package ColoredPointPackage
> would not be known when you are defining it.
> Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, I see. Yeah. That's just a bit too clever for my taste as well.

Colin