Hi all,
Just some pro’s and con’s of the GT Toolkit from a commercial point of view:
Pro:
The toolkit is way ahead of the other tools.
The toolkit is well maintained. Bugs are fixed pretty quick, once located.
The tools can be expanded quite easily. This is a key advantage, and now causes more people to work on the tools. And we need more people working on the development environment ...
Con:
GTDebugger has been unstable (had unstable features) a few time the last couple of months. One can notice there is development going on here.
The tools, especially the debugger, needs a bit getting used to.
To be honest, this is not much different from Pharo itself. One can notice there is development going on, and from time to time something critical breaks. Since the debugger, inspector and system browser are such a key tools, one probably notices this a bit faster when it concerns one of these tools.
But I consider that development is going on in those key areas a good thing. I must admit that I reverted to pharo for the moment, but I plan on going back once the moose tools are a bit more stable again.
So yes, I agree with Doru that these tools should be a default part of moose. This is the only way to get enough users for these tools. And I do not want to get stuck with the old things, that maybe work reliable, but do not improve any more.
Diego
I am not convinced you read the whole mail :). So, just to make sure, here is the snippet for you again (which is how things are done in plain Pharo code - no Moose magic involved):
EyeInspector registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
SpecDebugger registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
Workspace registerToolsOn: Smalltalk tools.
Doru
_______________________________________________
Moose-dev mailing list
Moose-dev@iam.unibe.ch
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev