June 2009 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] space left...

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

change the thread if you want to get an answer On Jun 21, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Carlos Crosetti wrote: > amd cpu, 768mb ram (physical), win xp sp3, pharo 0.1 #10342 > > debug>space left... > 7,259,612 bytes (internal) > 265,688,060 bytes (phusical) > 515,704,284 bytes (total) > > Please send me to a page showing how to inerpret this... > Quick question is: how much memory my actual pharo vm is connsuming > and when > the "low space watcher" is going to start sending alerts? > > Regards, Carlos > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Andrey Larionov

As i remember there are somithing called EasyMorphic. Maybe it could adapted to Polymorph? On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 06:04, Serge Stinckwich<serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Denker<denker(a)acm.org> wrote: >> > >> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >> route, I guess. It makes >> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >> That makes no sense. >> >> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >> interesting things is part of the >> overall compensation package of people in Research. > > I like your argument ;-) > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam > Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] > http://doesnotunderstand.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Serge Stinckwich

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Denker<denker(a)acm.org> wrote: > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. I like your argument ;-) -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/

June 21, 2009

[Pharo-project] space left...

by Carlos Crosetti

amd cpu, 768mb ram (physical), win xp sp3, pharo 0.1 #10342 debug>space left... 7,259,612 bytes (internal) 265,688,060 bytes (phusical) 515,704,284 bytes (total) Please send me to a page showing how to inerpret this... Quick question is: how much memory my actual pharo vm is connsuming and when the "low space watcher" is going to start sending alerts? Regards, Carlos

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)

by Carlos Crosetti

I think the UI Builder should not be in the scope of Pharo. A different group could be constituted and build on their own effort and funding, providing "one-click experience" images for Pharo and (why not) Squeak. Take Seaside as a model to follow. -----Mensaje original----- De: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr]En nombre de StÃ©phane Ducasse Enviado el: SÃ¡bado, 20 de Junio de 2009 04:52 p.m. Para: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Asunto: Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S) On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the > system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay > alone. > > I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty > compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. yes we will see. > I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like > syntax and this > is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make > its > syntax eternally useful and feature complete. exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting in addition. > Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the > fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here > are a lot of opportunities to evolve. We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk). I want a safer Smalltalk I want security concept cool sandbox cool module may be new concurrency model new compilers well modularised system fast loading I would love to have cool visibility mechanism pluggable type systems > Best regards > Janko > > P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while > other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. May be at the end we will fork again and create something for researcher only but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound evolution. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 05:53 p.m.

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the > system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay > alone. > > I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty > compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. yes we will see. > I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like > syntax and this > is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make > its > syntax eternally useful and feature complete. exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting in addition. > Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the > fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here > are a lot of opportunities to evolve. We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk). I want a safer Smalltalk I want security concept cool sandbox cool module may be new concurrency model new compilers well modularised system fast loading I would love to have cool visibility mechanism pluggable type systems > Best regards > Janko > > P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while > other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. May be at the end we will fork again and create something for researcher only but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound evolution. Stef

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

+ 100000000 :) I want to invent a reasonable future :) On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >> >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what >> all I installed last year, at the moment. >> >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >> for >> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >> session. > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > possibility > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > e.g. > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > end, this means we can not > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > things anymore. > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > dialects, and than > stop doing anything. > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > compatible to VisualWorks", > what would you take? > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Cameron Sanders wrote: > They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > > I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > all I installed last year, at the moment. not at all Smalltalk/X looks like VW. May be you tried MTSmalltalk > I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place for > it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > session. what is important for pharo is not to be backward compatible else we are dead. > > -Cam > > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Rudi Engelbrecht wrote: > >> Have you looked at Smalltalk/X? > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Eagle Offshore

Which I find funny because the one commercial grade swing app I did, I ended up building all that stuff because it was the only way I could see to get multiple views synced to the model without writing tons of glue code. Also, swing widgets don't like having null values as their data sources so the value models would keep them from throwing null pointer exceptions all the time. On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:25 AM, Steve Wirts wrote: > I did a talk(attached) at OOPSLA several years ago to explain the > benefits of ValueModels to java programmers, it was way over their > heads. > It's unfortunate as today I've yet to see anything in java that > approaches the productivity they provide. > > > > 2009/6/20 Schwab,Wilhelm K <bschwab(a)anest.ufl.edu> > Steve, > > Interesting that you mention value models. I just ran into a use > for a ValueHolder, and discovered that Dolphin's #value, #value: > protocol was not present. In fact ValueHolder>>value answers the > receiver! I added an override to my Dolphin compatibility package. > I exepect to add AspectValueAdapter and perhaps some converters as > need arises. > > None of this takes away from Magritte; I share your interest in it > and willingness to consider it as potentially powerful tool for GUI > building. > > Bill > > > > > From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr > ] On Behalf Of Steve Wirts > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:01 PM > To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S > > Value Models, TypeConverter library, SubCanvas support(super > powerful idea here), etc... some really wonderful idioms long lost > in OO guis. > VisualWorks had some really nice frameworks that were discarded due > to them being undervalued. > I hope to eventually re-introduce some of these fun frameworks into > pharo given my time constraints and interest from potential users. > > see > http://c2.com/ppr/vmodels.html > > Magritte seems like it might be a superior alternative to > VisualWorks ValueModels; I haven't explored it enough to really > know yet. > Pharo is the most exciting thing to come along for me in quite awhile! > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:42 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > > wrote: > > > > I don't know what I am waiting for -- except more time -- because I > > guess I should build such a thing. (Are there any Pharo/squeak > coders > > available for part-time consulting over the next year? ...At student > > level pay I must add.) > > > > I too want a GUI builder. > > > me too :) > So may be we could have a kind of bounty system for pharo. > Frankly we are rather full and we (the core) have not that much time > for > extensions but we would support any work in the direction of > UIBuilder > TestServer > Package.... > FileWrite-Rio kind of integration > Better MC support (yes I should look at MC1.5) > Better SUnit > Better tools (for example like the newInspector) > > Stef > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > <value models.ppt>_______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

Hi Marcus, I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay alone. I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like syntax and this is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make its syntax eternally useful and feature complete. Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here are a lot of opportunities to evolve. Best regards Janko P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. Marcus Denker pravi: > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > possibility > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > e.g. > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > end, this means we can not > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > things anymore. > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > dialects, and than > stop doing anything. > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > compatible to VisualWorks", > what would you take? > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > Marcus -- Janko MivÅ¡ek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

June 20, 2009