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

Re: [Pharo-project] Regular expression

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

thanks for the update. Now may be the problem can be still express with regex. Stef On Feb 12, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Lukas Renggli wrote: > VB-Regexp does not support any of the following common regular > expression features: lookahead, lookbehind, recursion, multiplicity > ranges, non-greedy quantifier, shy groups, directives, conditionals, > named captures, back references, and comments. > > You can (conceptually) do all this with PetitParser, but then you are > not writing a regular expression anymore but a (PEG) parser. > > There was once a plugin that called an external regular expression > library (I think it used the library Perl is using) that supported the > features you are looking for. > > Lukas > > On 11 February 2012 23:27, <recursive68(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Is it possible to use the VB-Regexp package to construct a single regular >> expression that ensures a string is alphanumeric and contains both at least >> one number and alphabetic character. >> >> Looking at the regexp package and documentation it doesn't appear so. In >> javascript or perl you use something like this with lookahead assertions: >> >> ^(?=.*[a-zA-Z])(?=.*[0-9]).*$ >> >> I have something working using multiple regexp's but wondered if a more >> typical regexp was possible using the package ? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch >

Feb. 12, 2012

[Pharo-project] [update 1.4] #14329

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

14329 ----- - Issue 5249: isPrime tests failing. Thanks Nicolas Cellier for the explanation. - Issue 5282: MC Enh from Squeak. Thanks Veronica Uquillas for Jet. - Issue 5265: The browse method should return the browser instance. Thanks Benjmain van Ryseghem.

Feb. 12, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Cairo in Pharo?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I will let igor give you more information. but yes we are looking for beta testers for Athens-Cairo. Normally there is a configurationOfAthens and examples that works with a nativeBoostedVM. Stef > Hi! > > I am working very hard these days on Roassal, a new visualization engine (which provide more interactions than Mondrian). > What is the status of Cairo? > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > >

Feb. 12, 2012

[Pharo-project] Cairo in Pharo?

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi! I am working very hard these days on Roassal, a new visualization engine (which provide more interactions than Mondrian). What is the status of Cairo? Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Feb. 12, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Are Objects really hard?

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

S, Milan Mimica piÅ¡e: > Can you and others list some of those books and other useful resources? > Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical? > > Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites. > Martin Fowler is my favorite. But there is a whole history of it, > starting from GOF, or Christopher Alexander if you want. Again, it has > nothing to do with Smalltalk in particular. You can do crappy > architecture in Smalltalk just like you can in Java or C++. I see many UML books around, so what is a state of UML modeling for domain models in Smalltalk? Is anyone using it? I have a feeling that Smalltalkers tend to avoid UML because of complexity (it is complex, true), but it can be used pragmatically and tailored to our use. Visualworks for instance have an nice UML class editor called ADvance (see an example [1]), but it seems hardly anyone use it. At least class diagrams are very useful for documenting the domain model. Just code is not enough. We are very weak here and maybe this is a reason why people find Smalltalk hard. Because they are lost in all that code, without any higher level picture. Janko [1] http://www.aidaweb.si/party-framework -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Feb. 12, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Are Objects really hard?

by Milan Mimica

2012/2/12 Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si> > > > Can you and others list some of those books and other useful resources? > Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical? > > Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites. > Martin Fowler is my favorite. But there is a whole history of it, starting from GOF, or Christopher Alexander if you want. Again, it has nothing to do with Smalltalk in particular. You can do crappy architecture in Smalltalk just like you can in Java or C++. -- Milan Mimica http://sparklet.sf.net

Feb. 12, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Are Objects really hard?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Here is a link from a source well known to us :) If it is not linked on the Pharo site, it should be: http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks.html Bill ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Janko MivÅ¡ek [janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si] Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:02 AM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr; Squeak; 'VWNC'; GNU Smalltalk Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Are Objects really hard? Milan zdravo! S, Milan Mimica piÅ¡e: > Janko MivÅ¡ek > > In this case I see a wise thinking about weaknesses of OO and Smalltalk > and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the > newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO domain > models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above > mentioned best practices, then author's claim that "no one really > understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid much > anymore. > There are many books written on OO domain modeling and there is so much > knowledge floating around. Can you and others list some of those books and other useful resources? Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical? Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites. Best regards Janko > The claim that no one understands OO it just > so stupid that it's not worth citing it. I for one do know how do it > right, in any language. You don't even need an OO laguage. It has > nothing do to with Smalltalk. It's about how you model real-life > problems in code. I find it easy, straightforward and natural. > > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Feb. 12, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: Are Objects really hard?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Oh yes, blame the tool, not those who _chose_ and then wielded the tool. I've seen that too. Welcome to Smalltalk. ________________________________________ From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr] on behalf of Janko MivÅ¡ek [janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si] Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:47 AM To: Squeak; Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr; GNU Smalltalk Cc: Robert Calco Subject: [Pharo-project] Fwd: Are Objects really hard? -------- Prvotno sporoÄilo -------- Datum: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 09:55:08 +0000 Od: Bob Calco <bob.calco(a)ellelministries.org> Hi everyone, On Feb 11, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek wrote: > Hi Stef, > > S, stephane ducasse piÅ¡e: > >> Frankly I do not care about what other people are thinking. >> OOP is a success look at Java, C#. >> >> Now let us keep our energy to build better Smalltalks. > Well, after hard work it is good from time to time to make a > retrospection and let our thoughts to think broader, to look from > a distance to our work. To see the forest and not just trees. > > So such debate from time to time is certainly refreshing and needed, > specially if is started from a outsider's perspective.Every wise man > listen to the opinion of others. Well, of course wisely :) > > In this case I see wise thinking about weaknesses of OO, Smalltalk > and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the > newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO > models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above > mentioned best practices, then author's claim that "no one really > understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid > much anymore. > > Best regards > Janko As a certified noob to Smalltalk hailing from the Ruby, Delphi, .NET and Java worlds where RDBMs rule, I must say I'm amused how anyone can say Smalltalk has *failed.* I had a funny experience when doing mainly Rails development a couple years ago. I had an interview at a PHP shop, where the main technical guru there insisted that Ruby/Rails had "failed" and wanted me to tell him why. I told him, actually, there were bugs in the early ActiveRecord API that exposed Rails to scalability problems, not the framework or design concept itself. I pointed out that if Rails failed, so did Symfony, and Django, ASP.NET <http://ASP.NET> MVC, and countless other copy-cat frameworks in other languages/platforms. If one measure of failure is industry adoption, then there was no way Rails failed. And where did MVC come from? Well, we know that answer. The whole discussion is pointless. Engineers sometimes get the idea that because they or a project they were on failed that happened to be using a particular tool, the tool is a failure. At bottom, this guy was bitten by Rails and so he had a kind of vendetta against it. As if PHP is the way, the truth and the light. By the way they offered me a job anyway, but I didn't take it. :) Some tools make certain things harder or easier. I find Smalltalk liberating as it makes it easy to decompose hard domain problems sans all the syntactic cruft of the so-called modern languages -- which, funny enough, are constantly trying to find new and more complicated ways to express what Smalltalk has always done simply: generic collections, metadata, reflection, etc. So, I'm going against the grain and getting into Smalltalk. I have been a bit disappointed by the state of certain libraries and the relatively small community, but I enjoy the language and feel more productive in it, so...that's what matters to me. - Bob -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Feb. 12, 2012

[Pharo-project] Regular expression

by recursive68＠gmail.com

Thanks for the confirmation, wasn't sure if I was missing something obvious.

Feb. 12, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Are Objects really hard?

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

Milan zdravo! S, Milan Mimica piÅ¡e: > Janko MivÅ¡ek > > In this case I see a wise thinking about weaknesses of OO and Smalltalk > and how to overcome it by better "best practices". For instance, the > newcommers are asking where to find a guidelines for modeling OO domain > models in pure OO way. In this guidelines we can emphasise above > mentioned best practices, then author's claim that "no one really > understands to this day how to do them right" won't be valid much > anymore. > There are many books written on OO domain modeling and there is so much > knowledge floating around. Can you and others list some of those books and other useful resources? Which are currently most popular, which are regarded as classical? Maybe we can list them as recommended literature on our websites. Best regards Janko > The claim that no one understands OO it just > so stupid that it's not worth citing it. I for one do know how do it > right, in any language. You don't even need an OO laguage. It has > nothing do to with Smalltalk. It's about how you model real-life > problems in code. I find it easy, straightforward and natural. > > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

Feb. 12, 2012