[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Self 3.0 impressions
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Self 3.0 impressions
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jecel Mattos de Assumpcao Jr. (kofuji))
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 93 22:06:08 EDT
- Reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Resent-date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 8:34:15 PST
- Resent-from: Urs Hoelzle <urs@otis>
- Resent-message-id: <9311121634.AA07691@otis.Stanford.EDU>
- Resent-to: real-self-interest
I just loved Self 3.0!
This is a huge improvement and I think you have crossed a threshhold
where the system is now a lot closer to Smalltalk implementations
in maturity. Many people who are rather conservative have expressed
interest in trying out Self when I showed them 3.0.
The animations are very entertaining ( and well thought out ) and
do not tire with repeation. I really prefer to program graphicaly
to typing what reminds me of LISP ( even though I adore LISP! ).
By working with methods one at a time people can clearly see
that Self looks almost exactly like Smalltalk.
On page 22 of "How to Use Self 3.0" there is a footnote saying "Menus
do not reflect the philosophy of concreteness we espouse for the ui."
I had the same problem with a "visual smalltalk" I designed many
years back. What I did was to call them "remote controls" and stop
worrying about it ;-)
The syntax on page 27 of "The Self 3.0 Programmer's Reference Manual"
does not seem to me to allow nesting of annotation as mentioned in
the text. I guess the text is right? How about a 'Man:' annotation
for Unix fans? :-) An 'Examples:' annotation might be nice too. Maybe
these things should go into the module objects as they refer to a whole
group of objects ( an application ) rather than just one.