December 2012 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

Hi Esteban, I understand and support the cleanness focus, this is why Pharo actually seems very promising for the future. Just that cleaning should be gradual, in a sense that while introducing new you keep an old but clearly marked as obsolete for a, say, year or two. So that user base have a time to adapt to the new change. I think if you put the old FD in a ObsoleteFileDirectory package and load it by default for a year, then not anymore, this will certainly ease fears of some of us. Don't count me on this group, but I understand the guys, why don't like an approach you are going. Because it is user unfriendly even that a solution seems to be simple. Cleanness won't be hurt by that! Best regards Janko Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:49, piÅ¡e Esteban Lorenzano: > Let me explain this once again: we are not "backward compatibility > killer maniacs" :) > We prefer to keep backward compatibility whenever is possible, but we > don't put it as a top priority: if we find room to improve, we do it. > > but, since we take responsibility for all the packages loaded in what we > call "pharo", we rather prefer not to have duplicates, so we achieve one > of our goal (cleanness) while also focussing out effort. > > I'm sorry if that annoys some of you time to time, but that's the way to > improve: to change. > > Also... I think you are overreacting, in pharo 2.0 we just introduced > three big changes (visible to users): FS, SystemAnnouncer (who has, btw, > same API than old SystemChangeNotifier) and Nautilus... that's all. All > the other is infrastructure and shouldn't be a problem for anyone. > > Esteban > > On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com > <mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Janko, >> that's already done (since ever), and FD is provided in two different >> ways: in the graveyard is the old FD package (loadable into pharo >> 2.0) http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/Graveyard20 , and also Camillo >> made a FD wrapper to FS... >> >> Esteban >> >> On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si >> <mailto:janko.mivsek@eranova.si>> wrote: >> >>> Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:12, piÅ¡e Igor Stasenko: >>>> On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si >>>> <mailto:janko.mivsek@eranova.si>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't >>>>> stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package >>>>> marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so >>>>> where is the problem? >>> >>>> Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower. >>>> Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers? >>> >>> Gain with a (in this case very small) bit of manpower to ease upgrade to >>> new FS by providing existing FD for a while outweighs the loss by not >>> doing that. As a professional organization providing a professional >>> product Pharo should think rather that way. >>> >>> Janko >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration >>>>> path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a >>>>> guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible >>>>> with some automated procedure to migrate our code. >>>>> >>>>> In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big >>>>> change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you >>>>> guide us >>>>> as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user >>>>> base behind. >>>>> >>>> But there is a well-written documentation of FS. >>>> I wonder, if there's any documentation for FileDirectory ever existed. >>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> Janko >>>>> >>>>> Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piÅ¡e StÃ©phane Ducasse: >>>>>> Chris >>>>>> >>>>>> Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? >>>>>> We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other >>>>>> people can use to make a living. >>>>>> May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? >>>>>> Because at the end of the day >>>>>> we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build >>>>>> them as researchers). >>>>>> >>>>>> I really think that there are still plenty of places where the >>>>>> system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to >>>>>> spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with >>>>>> it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove >>>>>> to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D >>>>>> >>>>>> Now nobody force you to: >>>>>> - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we >>>>>> avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or >>>>>> phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. >>>>>> >>>>>> - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in >>>>>> an happy world. So this is perfect. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you read the Pharo motto? >>>>>> >>>>>> Stef >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >>>>>>> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >>>>>>> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >>>>>>> example is bunk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 >>>>>>> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's >>>>>>> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to >>>>>>> demonstrate how >>>>>>> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. >>>>>>> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "FileDirectory" >>>>>>> localFileName: aString >>>>>>> | file | >>>>>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>>>>> file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. >>>>>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>>>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "FileSystem" >>>>>>> localFileName: aString >>>>>>> | file | >>>>>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>>>>> file := aString asFileName. >>>>>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>>>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new >>>>>>> heights >>>>>>> with FileSystem! (not!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris >>>>>>> <sean(a)clipperadams.com <mailto:sean@clipperadams.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>>>>>>>> While someone in the Pharo >>>>>>>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see >>>>>>>>> it as an >>>>>>>>> incremental API change >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you still say that after reading >>>>>>>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've >>>>>>>> wanted to throw >>>>>>>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like >>>>>>>> graffiti painted >>>>>>>> on a great work of art. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you >>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time >>>>>>>> I've embarked >>>>>>>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a >>>>>>>> mess of >>>>>>>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or >>>>>>>> Morphic >>>>>>>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was >>>>>>>> not willing to >>>>>>>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system >>>>>>>> (if even >>>>>>>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are >>>>>>>> documented, I didn't >>>>>>>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up >>>>>>>> and just went >>>>>>>> back to the standard tools. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very >>>>>>>> clear, and >>>>>>>> makes these types of arguments moot: >>>>>>>> - Better for the better >>>>>>>> - Beauty to learn from >>>>>>>> - Not backward compatible >>>>>>>> - Clean, lean and fast >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Sean >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Janko MivÅ¡ek >>>>> Aida/Web >>>>> Smalltalk Web Application Server >>>>> http://www.aidaweb.si <http://www.aidaweb.si/> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Janko MivÅ¡ek >>> Aida/Web >>> Smalltalk Web Application Server >>> http://www.aidaweb.si <http://www.aidaweb.si/> >>> >> > -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] NB Types and C Types

by Igor Stasenko

On 14 December 2012 20:48, Jimmie Houchin <jlhouchin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > In my app using NB and have a few questions on types. > > In one function I have an size_t *arg > for an argument. Is NBUInt64 proper for this argument? > No. 'size_t*' is a pointer. A size_t type defined as an unsigned integer type, with range big enough to specify size(s) like array size, or a size of memory to allocate in bytes. On 32-bit systems size_t is unsigned 32-bit integer. And here how you can answer your question by yourself: NBFFICallout new resolveType: 'size_t*' > I also have a DATE which uses OLE Automation date format which is described > as: > > """ > An OLE Automation date is implemented as a floating-point number whose > integral component is the number of days before or after midnight, 30 > December 1899, and whose fractional component represents the time on that > day divided by 24. > """ > > Would NBUInt64 be best or is NBUInt32 a better fit? I haven't seen a method > for this particular date epoch, but I can easily write the method to handle > conversion. > No. The C double type has a special discipline for returning it from function: - it is returned in FP register, unlike rest which using EAX/EDX registers. So, if you use either NBUInt64 or NBUInt32 you won't be able to get actual values which function returns. So, you should use 'double' type, which is alias for NBFloat64 > Thanks for any wisdom and guidance. > > Jimmie -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Esteban Lorenzano

Let me explain this once again: we are not "backward compatibility killer maniacs" :) We prefer to keep backward compatibility whenever is possible, but we don't put it as a top priority: if we find room to improve, we do it. but, since we take responsibility for all the packages loaded in what we call "pharo", we rather prefer not to have duplicates, so we achieve one of our goal (cleanness) while also focussing out effort. I'm sorry if that annoys some of you time to time, but that's the way to improve: to change. Also... I think you are overreacting, in pharo 2.0 we just introduced three big changes (visible to users): FS, SystemAnnouncer (who has, btw, same API than old SystemChangeNotifier) and Nautilus... that's all. All the other is infrastructure and shouldn't be a problem for anyone. Esteban On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:40 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Janko, > that's already done (since ever), and FD is provided in two different ways: in the graveyard is the old FD package (loadable into pharo 2.0) http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/Graveyard20 , and also Camillo made a FD wrapper to FS... > > Esteban > > On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: > >> Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:12, piÅ¡e Igor Stasenko: >>> On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: >> >>>> Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't >>>> stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package >>>> marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so >>>> where is the problem? >> >>> Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower. >>> Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers? >> >> Gain with a (in this case very small) bit of manpower to ease upgrade to >> new FS by providing existing FD for a while outweighs the loss by not >> doing that. As a professional organization providing a professional >> product Pharo should think rather that way. >> >> Janko >> >>> >>>> >>>> I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration >>>> path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a >>>> guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible >>>> with some automated procedure to migrate our code. >>>> >>>> In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big >>>> change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us >>>> as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user >>>> base behind. >>>> >>> But there is a well-written documentation of FS. >>> I wonder, if there's any documentation for FileDirectory ever existed. >>> >>>> Best regards >>>> Janko >>>> >>>> Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piÅ¡e StÃ©phane Ducasse: >>>>> Chris >>>>> >>>>> Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? >>>>> We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living. >>>>> May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day >>>>> we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers). >>>>> >>>>> I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to >>>>> spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove >>>>> to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D >>>>> >>>>> Now nobody force you to: >>>>> - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or >>>>> phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. >>>>> >>>>> - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect. >>>>> >>>>> Did you read the Pharo motto? >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >>>>>> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >>>>>> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >>>>>> example is bunk. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 >>>>>> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's >>>>>> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how >>>>>> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. >>>>>> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: >>>>>> >>>>>> "FileDirectory" >>>>>> localFileName: aString >>>>>> | file | >>>>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>>>> file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. >>>>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>>>> >>>>>> "FileSystem" >>>>>> localFileName: aString >>>>>> | file | >>>>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>>>> file := aString asFileName. >>>>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights >>>>>> with FileSystem! (not!) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris >>>>>> <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>>>>>>> While someone in the Pharo >>>>>>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>>>>>>> incremental API change >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you still say that after reading >>>>>>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw >>>>>>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted >>>>>>> on a great work of art. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the >>>>>>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked >>>>>>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of >>>>>>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic >>>>>>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to >>>>>>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even >>>>>>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't >>>>>>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went >>>>>>> back to the standard tools. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and >>>>>>> makes these types of arguments moot: >>>>>>> - Better for the better >>>>>>> - Beauty to learn from >>>>>>> - Not backward compatible >>>>>>> - Clean, lean and fast >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> Sean >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Janko MivÅ¡ek >>>> Aida/Web >>>> Smalltalk Web Application Server >>>> http://www.aidaweb.si >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Janko MivÅ¡ek >> Aida/Web >> Smalltalk Web Application Server >> http://www.aidaweb.si >> >

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Igor Stasenko

On 15 December 2012 12:31, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: > Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:12, piÅ¡e Igor Stasenko: >> On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: > >>> Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't >>> stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package >>> marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so >>> where is the problem? > >> Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower. >> Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers? > > Gain with a (in this case very small) bit of manpower to ease upgrade to > new FS by providing existing FD for a while outweighs the loss by not > doing that. As a professional organization providing a professional > product Pharo should think rather that way. > Hold on.. Since when Pharo project became professional product? How much money you and others paying for using it? Yes, we position it as a product FOR professionals, but does it automatically makes a professional one? I don't think so. So, why you think that it is correct to put such requirements/expectations it? > Janko > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Esteban Lorenzano

Janko, that's already done (since ever), and FD is provided in two different ways: in the graveyard is the old FD package (loadable into pharo 2.0) http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pharo/Graveyard20 , and also Camillo made a FD wrapper to FS... Esteban On Dec 15, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: > Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:12, piÅ¡e Igor Stasenko: >> On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: > >>> Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't >>> stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package >>> marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so >>> where is the problem? > >> Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower. >> Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers? > > Gain with a (in this case very small) bit of manpower to ease upgrade to > new FS by providing existing FD for a while outweighs the loss by not > doing that. As a professional organization providing a professional > product Pharo should think rather that way. > > Janko > >> >>> >>> I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration >>> path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a >>> guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible >>> with some automated procedure to migrate our code. >>> >>> In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big >>> change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us >>> as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user >>> base behind. >>> >> But there is a well-written documentation of FS. >> I wonder, if there's any documentation for FileDirectory ever existed. >> >>> Best regards >>> Janko >>> >>> Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piÅ¡e StÃ©phane Ducasse: >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? >>>> We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living. >>>> May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day >>>> we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers). >>>> >>>> I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to >>>> spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove >>>> to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D >>>> >>>> Now nobody force you to: >>>> - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or >>>> phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. >>>> >>>> - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect. >>>> >>>> Did you read the Pharo motto? >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >>>>> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >>>>> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >>>>> example is bunk. >>>>> >>>>> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 >>>>> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's >>>>> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how >>>>> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. >>>>> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: >>>>> >>>>> "FileDirectory" >>>>> localFileName: aString >>>>> | file | >>>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>>> file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. >>>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>>> >>>>> "FileSystem" >>>>> localFileName: aString >>>>> | file | >>>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>>> file := aString asFileName. >>>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>>> >>>>> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights >>>>> with FileSystem! (not!) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris >>>>> <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>>>>> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>>>>>> While someone in the Pharo >>>>>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>>>>>> incremental API change >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you still say that after reading >>>>>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >>>>>> >>>>>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw >>>>>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted >>>>>> on a great work of art. >>>>>> >>>>>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the >>>>>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked >>>>>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of >>>>>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic >>>>>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to >>>>>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even >>>>>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't >>>>>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went >>>>>> back to the standard tools. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and >>>>>> makes these types of arguments moot: >>>>>> - Better for the better >>>>>> - Beauty to learn from >>>>>> - Not backward compatible >>>>>> - Clean, lean and fast >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Sean >>> >>> -- >>> Janko MivÅ¡ek >>> Aida/Web >>> Smalltalk Web Application Server >>> http://www.aidaweb.si >>> >> >> >> > > -- > Janko MivÅ¡ek > Aida/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si >

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

Dne 15. 12. 2012 12:12, piÅ¡e Igor Stasenko: > On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: >> Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't >> stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package >> marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so >> where is the problem? > Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower. > Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers? Gain with a (in this case very small) bit of manpower to ease upgrade to new FS by providing existing FD for a while outweighs the loss by not doing that. As a professional organization providing a professional product Pharo should think rather that way. Janko > >> >> I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration >> path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a >> guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible >> with some automated procedure to migrate our code. >> >> In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big >> change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us >> as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user >> base behind. >> > But there is a well-written documentation of FS. > I wonder, if there's any documentation for FileDirectory ever existed. > >> Best regards >> Janko >> >> Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piÅ¡e StÃ©phane Ducasse: >>> Chris >>> >>> Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? >>> We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living. >>> May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day >>> we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers). >>> >>> I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to >>> spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove >>> to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D >>> >>> Now nobody force you to: >>> - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or >>> phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. >>> >>> - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect. >>> >>> Did you read the Pharo motto? >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: >>> >>>> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >>>> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >>>> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >>>> example is bunk. >>>> >>>> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 >>>> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's >>>> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how >>>> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. >>>> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: >>>> >>>> "FileDirectory" >>>> localFileName: aString >>>> | file | >>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>> file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. >>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>> >>>> "FileSystem" >>>> localFileName: aString >>>> | file | >>>> super localFileName: aString. >>>> file := aString asFileName. >>>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>>> >>>> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights >>>> with FileSystem! (not!) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris >>>> <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>>>> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>>>>> While someone in the Pharo >>>>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>>>>> incremental API change >>>>> >>>>> Can you still say that after reading >>>>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >>>>> >>>>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw >>>>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted >>>>> on a great work of art. >>>>> >>>>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the >>>>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked >>>>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of >>>>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic >>>>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to >>>>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even >>>>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't >>>>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went >>>>> back to the standard tools. >>>>> >>>>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and >>>>> makes these types of arguments moot: >>>>> - Better for the better >>>>> - Beauty to learn from >>>>> - Not backward compatible >>>>> - Clean, lean and fast >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Sean >> >> -- >> Janko MivÅ¡ek >> Aida/Web >> Smalltalk Web Application Server >> http://www.aidaweb.si >> > > > -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Igor Stasenko

On 15 December 2012 10:27, Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> wrote: > Hi guys, > > Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't > stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package > marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so > where is the problem? Yes, there's one big reason: maintainability. And manpower. Who would like to maintain FD? Any takers? > > I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration > path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a > guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible > with some automated procedure to migrate our code. > > In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big > change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us > as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user > base behind. > But there is a well-written documentation of FS. I wonder, if there's any documentation for FileDirectory ever existed. > Best regards > Janko > > Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piÅ¡e StÃ©phane Ducasse: >> Chris >> >> Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? >> We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living. >> May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day >> we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers). >> >> I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to >> spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove >> to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D >> >> Now nobody force you to: >> - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or >> phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. >> >> - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect. >> >> Did you read the Pharo motto? >> >> Stef >> >> >> On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: >> >>> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >>> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >>> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >>> example is bunk. >>> >>> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 >>> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's >>> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how >>> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. >>> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: >>> >>> "FileDirectory" >>> localFileName: aString >>> | file | >>> super localFileName: aString. >>> file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. >>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>> >>> "FileSystem" >>> localFileName: aString >>> | file | >>> super localFileName: aString. >>> file := aString asFileName. >>> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >>> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >>> >>> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights >>> with FileSystem! (not!) >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris >>> <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>>> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>>>> While someone in the Pharo >>>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>>>> incremental API change >>>> >>>> Can you still say that after reading >>>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >>>> >>>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw >>>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted >>>> on a great work of art. >>>> >>>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the >>>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked >>>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of >>>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic >>>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to >>>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even >>>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't >>>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went >>>> back to the standard tools. >>>> >>>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and >>>> makes these types of arguments moot: >>>> - Better for the better >>>> - Beauty to learn from >>>> - Not backward compatible >>>> - Clean, lean and fast >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Sean > > -- > Janko MivÅ¡ek > Aida/Web > Smalltalk Web Application Server > http://www.aidaweb.si > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Favorite New Features

by Marcus Denker

On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Hey guys, what are your favorite features added in 2.0? Please answer at > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ActionsInPharo20 > > There are so many improvements, I've definitely lost track. I remember there > were some really useful shortcuts cami or ben showed me, something like > cmd-click to browse class... I will have a lookâ¦ if everything fails over christmas holidays. Marcus

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

Hi guys, Is there any technical reason that the old FileDirectory stuff doesn't stay and work in parallel to a new FileSystem? Maybe in some package marked obsolete. Both use the same plugin and the same primitives, so where is the problem? I also think that for a professionally viable product a clear migration path should be provided. Progress yes, but user base must have a guidance how to slowly migrate to the new functionality. If possible with some automated procedure to migrate our code. In case of FileSystem/FileDirectory, this is certainly quite a big change and will break a lot of code. Be sure therefore that you guide us as much as possible, otherwise there is a danger to loose a lot of user base behind. Best regards Janko Dne 15. 12. 2012 08:55, piÅ¡e StÃ©phane Ducasse: > Chris > > Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? > We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living. > May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day > we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers). > > I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to > spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove > to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D > > Now nobody force you to: > - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or > phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. > > - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect. > > Did you read the Pharo motto? > > Stef > > > On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: > >> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >> example is bunk. >> >> Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 >> which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's >> not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how >> using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. >> The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: >> >> "FileDirectory" >> localFileName: aString >> | file | >> super localFileName: aString. >> file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. >> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >> >> "FileSystem" >> localFileName: aString >> | file | >> super localFileName: aString. >> file := aString asFileName. >> file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. >> self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. >> >> Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights >> with FileSystem! (not!) >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris >> <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>>> While someone in the Pharo >>>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>>> incremental API change >>> >>> Can you still say that after reading >>> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >>> >>> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw >>> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted >>> on a great work of art. >>> >>> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the >>> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked >>> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of >>> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic >>> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to >>> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even >>> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't >>> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went >>> back to the standard tools. >>> >>> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and >>> makes these types of arguments moot: >>> - Better for the better >>> - Beauty to learn from >>> - Not backward compatible >>> - Clean, lean and fast >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Sean -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: Lua scripting with nativeboost?

by Peter H. Meadows

Some of these games are fun: http://scratch.mit.edu/ On 15 December 2012 05:43, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 December 2012 21:26, Lawson English <lenglish5(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 12/13/12 1:58 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>> On 13 December 2012 09:54, dimitris chloupis <thekilon(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> I was ready to disagree , but you do make a valid point. >>>> >>>> Also going down the pharo route you dont offer games only a better >>>> language >>>> but also a development enviroment and that is a double win. I am suprised >>>> that pharo is not used heavily for games. >>>> >>>> And no I dont believe sandbox is the reason. Afterall python is very >>>> popular >>>> with games too and has no sandbox. >>> >>> indeed, its all about marketing and having 'killer app', and then you >>> wont notice how eagerly new >>> people will jump into bandwagon. >>> >>> >> >> until certain issues with garbage collection are fixed, there will be no >> playable realtime games on any of the OSS Smalltalks. >> > > and why you assuming that "killer game" should be realtime? > But even if that.. > i do not agree with you. > You can always write a heavy numeric crunching stuff in C, but > write game logic in smalltalk. > > Most of AAA games i seen, paying a lot of attention to crunching, and > little to logic.. > and then people like get bored after 10 minutes of play. > Because running twice as fast don't converts into "playing twice as fun". > >> L > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >

Dec. 15, 2012