We are using a different type of language but too many people still
think in static terms. A completition popup can't look the same as in
java/C++ and the data gathering phase can't work with static source
code analysis alone. I'm not a mac guru, but follow apple and
"Think different"
This is in response to the popular "but, dynamic languages can't have auto-completion" baloney argument. First off, Squeak and VisualWorks both have auto-completion that works very well. I do tend to use it, but not very often. I certainly don't use it as much as I do when I am programming in java. Dynamic languages don't require as much cognitive friction and things just seem to flow. Auto-completion just isn't an issue. I simply loved Lother's response because it typifies the thought divide between dynamic and static language users. We "think different" because our tools allow us to create in more grandiose ways and allows access to better abstractions.
Posts
2 comments:
Um... I don't type that much Smalltalk code when I do. That's the point of writing proper code. Therefore, I tend to feel autocompletion is largely a problem created by the need to write too much.
Now if I could get a "suggested literature" popup that could select relevant pieces of the code to read... something like "Google Senders"...
Yes, in Squeak using the package ECompletion, I simply do ctrl-space and it gives me a set of possible methods that I can select from. It works a lot like Eclipse's auto-completion for java.
Post a Comment