August 2011 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo 1.3 release

by laurent laffont

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:52 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:42 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse < > stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Pat Maddox wrote: > > > > > 1.2 is for download on the site, 1.3 is listed on the site with no > links, and 1.4 is discussed on the mailing list. I have absolutely no idea > what is going on with Pharo, which version is being actively developed and > maintained, which one to use, etc. It is very frustrating. So what's the > deal with the Pharo "roadmap" ? > > > > > > Pat > > > > situation is really simple > > 1.3 is in post release candidate mode. > > we should build the one click distribution, update the web site > and announce it > > > > > > I can update the website when you tell me. > > > > Laurent. > > thanks laurent > > could you add a little info and a link on the latest 1.3 release candidate? > Yes. I've tried but I'm stupid I don't know how to add a blog post on cmsbox :) I'm waiting Adrian answer but maybe one of you know ? Laurent. > > Stef >

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo 1.3 release

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:52 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:42 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Pat Maddox wrote: > > > 1.2 is for download on the site, 1.3 is listed on the site with no links, and 1.4 is discussed on the mailing list. I have absolutely no idea what is going on with Pharo, which version is being actively developed and maintained, which one to use, etc. It is very frustrating. So what's the deal with the Pharo "roadmap" ? > > > > Pat > > situation is really simple > 1.3 is in post release candidate mode. > we should build the one click distribution, update the web site and announce it > > > I can update the website when you tell me. > > Laurent. thanks laurent could you add a little info and a link on the latest 1.3 release candidate? Stef

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Omnibrowser in 1.4

by Philippe Marschall

On 29.08.2011 14:32, Lukas Renggli wrote: > On 29 August 2011 13:54, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: >> Since there is ob, I personally use Nautilus. It provides interesting functionalities >> such as grouping packages and the hierarchies view (such as in vw). Importing >> things are missing however, including refactorings. > > Personally I wonder what the goal of Nautilus is? > > Nautilus looks to me like yet another Smalltalk-80 browser that works > exactly the same as all previous Smalltalk browsers in the last 32 > years (including OB). IMHO fixed lists, a text field and ugly buttons > do not cut it anymore. Did any Smalltalker ever work with XCode, > Eclipse, VisualStudio, ...? They are all inferior! Everybody body who has never used them or has used them at most for 5 seconds by clicking through the menus can confirm this. Because that was the state 15 years ago. Never mind that nobody actually uses RB because it's that bad. As long as nobody admits this our tools are prefect. Cheers Philippe

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo 1.3 release

by laurent laffont

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:42 AM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Pat Maddox wrote: > > > 1.2 is for download on the site, 1.3 is listed on the site with no links, > and 1.4 is discussed on the mailing list. I have absolutely no idea what is > going on with Pharo, which version is being actively developed and > maintained, which one to use, etc. It is very frustrating. So what's the > deal with the Pharo "roadmap" ? > > > > Pat > > situation is really simple > 1.3 is in post release candidate mode. > we should build the one click distribution, update the web site and > announce it > I can update the website when you tell me. Laurent. > > 1.4 in alpha > > Stef > > > > >

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Omnibrowser in 1.4

by Marcus Denker

On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:38 PM, Lukas Renggli wrote: >>>> Is the current system simple and minimal? >>> >>> No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release. >> >> No, i wouldn't say so. >> >> Most fixes and improvements are still about cleaning things out and fixing bugs. >> But not about new features. > > Yes, you are right. In fact Pharo 1.4 is roughly 1 MB smaller than Pharo 1.3. > Do not compare image size!!!!!! 1.4 is smaller only(!) because we unloaded ScriptLoader13. And every MC commit makes the image bigger, as does every update. > Zinc is an excellent example, because it is fully backward compatible. > I don't see that with RPackage, SystemAnnouncements, Ring, Shout > (before Alan fixed it), with the proposed RB changes, ... > I do not want my live to be defined by being backward compatibe to what we have. Life is short. I mean that seriously: Should it be my life's goal to make a backward compatible system? I spend quite some time thinking about what to do with my future. Go to industry, have a real salary, and play with etoys the evening? Stay in research and write lots of papers with lots of greek letters that nobody reads? Or it there a third way possible? Maybe? But the idea of building a Smaltalk system whose only goal is to be compatbile to Squeak-minus-eToys I never even thought about ;-) >> > > Right, but you can easily force people not to follow. I don't > understand why all the people that still use Pharo 1.0 or 1.1 don't > speak up? > Are there a lot of 1.0 and 1.1 users left? They don't submit bug reports, for sure. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Aug. 30, 2011

[Pharo-project] My view on where Pharo is heading

by Damien Cassou

In my point of view, most people in the community wants a micro kernel for Pharo (or better no kernel at all) on top of which it would be possible to load packages such as a graphical interface, browsers, a network library... I see two ways to achieve this goal. 1) The immediate unloading way. In this way, the Pharo maintainers try to remove stuff as they are in the current image. However it is very complex as each stuff is not necessarily well packaged and has dependencies in a lot of other packages. Cycles in these dependencies make things even worse and would prevent these stuff from being loaded back. Some stuff are so complex that no one understands them anymore. 2) The make it better and unload way. Because the Pharo maintainers think the previous way is too difficult, they choose to start by making the current system better. This includes removing some stuff here and there, but also include replacing crappy stuff by better designed ones. When a stuff is correctly packaged it is going to be much easier to remove it and load it back. During the first phase the size of the system is going to decrease slowly as crappy stuff are being replaced or removed. But not as fast as people would like. However, during the second phase, the system will significantly and rapidly shrink because it will be possible to remove stuff without any problem. Even better, anyone will be able to load each stuff back. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo 1.3 release

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:37 AM, Pat Maddox wrote: > 1.2 is for download on the site, 1.3 is listed on the site with no links, and 1.4 is discussed on the mailing list. I have absolutely no idea what is going on with Pharo, which version is being actively developed and maintained, which one to use, etc. It is very frustrating. So what's the deal with the Pharo "roadmap" ? > > Pat situation is really simple 1.3 is in post release candidate mode. we should build the one click distribution, update the web site and announce it 1.4 in alpha Stef

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Omnibrowser in 1.4

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

> >> Hi guys, >> >> I am completely for inventing something new. >> >> However, I do not think this is the right model for doing so. >> In a sense we are getting static, we put some tools in the image and >> expect people to use them. >> I think that this is going to be contra productive. >> I believe that a much better model would be a dynamic one in which >> people can load the tools that make them more productive. >> Moreover, this model will force us, developers, to better target our >> tools. Make clear which are their objectives, showing their benefits, >> improve their design for understandability and extension and thus >> getting feedback and interested people. At the end better tools will >> emerge. >> In a word, better products, with a "natural selection" process. >> > > So we than just make "Pharo" an unusable download and expect the > users to evaluate and pick their favorite browser from 3 to-be-loaded ones? > Do you think this is realistic? and not use one yourself or work day long with bad one..... common let us put our energy in something else. > > > > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de > >

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Pharo 1.3 release

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Igor I was thinking about it yesterday do you have the vms? Marcus and others do we introduce the fix for the 'broken' syntax highlight because it touches a lot of code? and this is really late in the process and this is not a showstopper. Stef On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Marcus Denker wrote: > The state is the same as 3 week ago, (and I fear the same as in 3 weeks): > > -> image is finished, there are some (5 or so bugreport) that will be integrated as they get fixed, > but this does not hold up the release > > -> What is missing are VMs and the one-click. I do not know which VMs to take. This has not changed in 3 weeks. > > So maybe we should just release with the same VMs as 1.2, just to get it done? > > Marcus > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 7:53 AM, laurent laffont wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> maybe I haven't read correctly the mailing-list but I still don't know if Pharo 1.3 is released or not, cannot find any official announcement, release date .... >> >> The website is misleading, I can help on this, but need to be sure. >> >> I've also prepared a french announcement but needs to be up to date before. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Laurent Laffont > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de > >

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Omnibrowser in 1.4

by Marcus Denker

On Aug 29, 2011, at 10:56 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > Lukas, > > On 29 Aug 2011, at 19:53, Lukas Renggli wrote: > >> I disagree; I would like a small and stable Pharo in which crazy ideas >> can be realized. For that I don't need fancy abstractions, but a >> minimal, simple and absolutely stable system in which I can load and >> do whatever I want. Maybe this is just me? > > I guess it all depends on your point of view. I can imagine that for you a clean minimal core is important as you build your own universe. But for most regular users, more stuff is needed. In practice, the core/dev difference was not optimal for all the reasons given before. I really feel crippled in a core image. And I don't like having to do long builds myself. > > I switched to 1.3, but I am using your one-click image because I need Seaside and there is no client build in Pharo any more. (Thx, BTW ;-) > Seaside builds for 1.3 and 1.4 are on my TODO list (like far too many other things). ESUG is nice, but it cuts into the time... -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de

Aug. 30, 2011