December 2014 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Sean P. DeNigris

kilon.alios wrote > I said there is no official documentation, no chapter on PBE or Pharo for > the Enterprise. I see the point. Looking from a new user perspective, how would someone who has not followed the mailing lists for the last few years know that e.g.: - there are two Spec papers, one (which contains some advanced-but-common use cases) which may never have been released (I got it directly from Ben) - various common NB gotchas are only on ML threads (to my knowledge) - the best Zinc documentation is on Sven's site (is there an in-image link)? etc... And now Kilon is projecting that the Playground will have the same difficulty. While premature since 4.0 hasn't been released yet, this seems a valid concern. So how do we provide a single launching point for new users to find relevant documentation? Maybe a start would be to put all these outside links into Help System? To the point of "documentation is hard to write/keep current", the best documentation is executable. And the best executable documentation is part of the development cycle. One area in which IMHO we are severely lacking, and which, if done right, would alleviate some of this stress, is to layer a clear set of BDD-style Behavioral Specifications (Use-case driven acceptance tests) on top of the unit tests. For me, usually our tests were designed from an "is it working" perspective in which "how you use it" is obscured. Bringing it back to the current Workspace -> Playground situation, Specs would be a tremendous help in replacing existing tools because it would be clear what the old tool had promised to users. For me, part of the fear of cleaning up Morphic is always - I don't know what the design contract is! Which parts are internal? Which are experiments? If I implement a new clean TextMorph, what behavior would it have to have? My 2c... ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/playground-vs-workspace-tp4794667p4794964.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Duration year

by Maximiliano Taborda

Yes Hilaire, it is used in production. Mainly in systems related to the financial domain. Regards, Maxi 2014-12-07 16:51 GMT-03:00 Hilaire <hilaire(a)drgeo.eu>: > Thanks. > Looks interesting. > Does anyone use it in production? > > Hilaire > > Le 07/12/2014 18:36, David T. Lewis a Ã©crit : > > On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 09:30:06AM +0100, Hilaire wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> What is Chalt??n please? > > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2014-April/177938.ht… > > > > https://github.com/mtaborda/chalten > > > >> > >> Hilaire > >> > >> Le 02/12/2014 20:53, Maximiliano Taborda a ??crit : > >>> Hi all. > >>> > >>> The same examples using Chalt??n: > >>> February twentyninth, 2012 next: 1 yearMeasure. "=> February > >>> 28th, 2013" > >>> March first, 2011 next: 1 yearMeasure. "=> March 1st, 2012" > >>> March first, 2011 next: 12 monthsMeasure. "=> March 1st, 2012" > >>> > >>> Hilaire, In Chalt??n a year is a year so you don't need to care about > of > >>> the number of days in it. > >>> > >>> Regards. > >>> Maxi > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu > >> iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu > >> > > > > > > > -- > Dr. Geo - http://drgeo.eu > iStoa - http://istoa.drgeo.eu > > >

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Alexandre Bergel

For me Playground is not even related to what is a Workspace. Therefore these two tools deserve different name in my opinion. Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > On Dec 8, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <a.wacknitz(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > For me what you call GTPlayground is a better workspace than the original one. It will replace the workspace (in Pharo) for me > but it is still a workspace.

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Alexandre Bergel

> However, it is precisely those different opinions that are valuable even if it is uncomfortable for the one that proposes a new solution. Yes, and this is how leaders are judged :-) Alexandre > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com <mailto:alexandre.bergel@me.com>> wrote: > This is amazing to see such many different opinions. For me, I would keep it innovative and breaking with its legacy. Playground for all! No more workspaces! And yeah, we will have to write new book about that. We are already working on this! > > Cheers, > Alexandre > > > > On Dec 8, 2014, at 3:18 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com <mailto:tudor@tudorgirba.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code. > > > > This is not the intention of the workspace. > > > > Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift. > > > > Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness. > > > > It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu <http://www.bergel.eu/> > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com <http://www.tudorgirba.com/> > > "Every thing has its own flow"

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pillar latex generation

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi Noury, I do not understand what you are trying to achieve? Have you had a look at: https://github.com/pillar-markup/book-skeleton I use it for AgileVisualization Cheers, Alexandre -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > On Dec 9, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Noury Bouraqadi <bouraqadi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm experimenting with Pillar. I'm using a test.pillar file as input with the following content: > !This is a title > - item1 > - item2 > -item3 > > In a folder that contains only my test.pillar file, I generate latex version using the following command: > pillar export --to=latex test.pier > test.tex > > The resulting test.tex is not conform to the template. > In the template, there is some stuff including: > \newcommand{\ct}[1]{{\sffamily\textup{#1}}} > > while in the generated test.tex file, I get > \newcommand{\ct}[1]} > > Did I missed something? > > Noury

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by kilon alios

My only objection was the documentation but since we cleared this up you have 100% my support , my faith and my trust. Frankly I have voiced several concerns with GTPlayground because there was things I was missing from workspace and you were prompt to fix those issues and fast and efficiently , I see no reason to doubt that your work will have a massive impact on pharo and will drive Pharo forward. Personally I love your style, because you are not just a coder its clear to me you have also an eye for good design. We may not agree at some decisions but still I cannot doubt that you take care of your design and understand the practical benefits of a good design. Concerning the name itself you can change it, we cant have progress without change and if the name has to go, the name has to go. Even if you did want to change the name just to credit youself my point is that you well deserve it, you worked hard for this, its your baby why the hell you should not name it whatever you want. I dont care about names I care about features, documentation and good designs. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for > permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that > I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to > disturb so many people with my infatuation. > > At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many people > look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment behind the > effort. > > I will stop responding to this thread now. > > Thanks for the feedback. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand < > hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello Doru, >> >> I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, >> for better or worst. >> >> The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest >> taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese >> Felis Catus which is a specific breed. >> >> On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new >> implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen >> every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" >> discussions. >> >> Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation >> which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, >> DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever. >> >> For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both >> implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more >> implementations discriminated by its type. >> >> HernÃ¡n >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >> Hi, >>> >>> As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. >>> The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is >>> done, and work is typically associated with creating code. >>> >>> This is not the intention of the workspace. >>> >>> Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual >>> implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar >>> to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a >>> significant shift. >>> >>> Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of >>> "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will >>> likely evolve towards even more liveliness. >>> >>> It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets >>> renamed to Playground. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> >> >> > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Luc Fabresse

2014-12-09 11:06 GMT+01:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > > On 08 Dec 2014, at 22:53, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for > permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that > I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to > disturb so many people with my infatuation. > > > > At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many > people look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment > behind the effort. > > > > I will stop responding to this thread now. > > OK, fair enough, but please don't stop what you are doing ;-) > +1000 IMO, I do not care of the name. Playground is good enough to me and Alex is right, next doc will be up to date. GTTools are innovatives and we must push them for a better and nicer Pharo. Obviously, we should also take care of not loosing good stuff from the existing tools and it is not the case here between Workspace and Playground. So thx Doru, and please keep pushing ;-) Luc > > > Thanks for the feedback. > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand < > hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello Doru, > > > > I think you have a new different implementation of the classic > Workspace, for better or worst. > > > > The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest > taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese > Felis Catus which is a specific breed. > > > > On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new > implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen > every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" > discussions. > > > > Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation > which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, > DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever. > > > > For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both > implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more > implementations discriminated by its type. > > > > HernÃ¡n > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > > > > Hi, > > > > As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. > The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is > done, and work is typically associated with creating code. > > > > This is not the intention of the workspace. > > > > Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual > implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar > to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a > significant shift. > > > > Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of > "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will > likely evolve towards even more liveliness. > > > > It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets > renamed to Playground. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Doru > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > > > > > > > > > -- > > www.tudorgirba.com > > > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > >

Dec. 9, 2014

Pillar latex generation

by Noury Bouraqadi

Hi, I'm experimenting with Pillar. I'm using a test.pillar file as input with the following content: !This is a title - item1 - item2 -item3 In a folder that contains only my test.pillar file, I generate latex version using the following command: pillar export --to=latex test.pier > test.tex The resulting test.tex is not conform to the template. In the template, there is some stuff including: \newcommand{\ct}[1]{{\sffamily\textup{#1}}} while in the generated test.tex file, I get \newcommand{\ct}[1]} Did I missed something? Noury

Dec. 9, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 08 Dec 2014, at 22:53, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > My intention was to have a discussion based on arguments and to ask for permission to change something I believe in. If I give the impression that I want to name for the sake of naming, I am sorry. And I am sorry I had to disturb so many people with my infatuation. > > At the same time, I am also quite abated by the fact that too many people look only at what exists and not invest trust in the commitment behind the effort. > > I will stop responding to this thread now. OK, fair enough, but please don't stop what you are doing ;-) > Thanks for the feedback. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 9:30 PM, HernÃ¡n Morales Durand <hernan.morales(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Doru, > > I think you have a new different implementation of the classic Workspace, for better or worst. > > The problem is everybody wants their tool be named as the highest taxonomic rank. Compare it with naming your cat as "Cat" and not as Siamese Felis Catus which is a specific breed. > > On the other side, what prevents for anyone else doing a "better"/new implementation and reclaiming the Workspace name? And this could happen every year? I don't know you but I get bored of seeing "I want that name" discussions. > > Workspace is a type of tool, it happens that there is an implementation which owned such name. It should be renamed as OldWorkspace, DeveloperWorkspace, ClassicWorkspace, or whatever. > > For me, Workspace in the World menu should display a sub-menu with both implementations. And community gains a place to display/register more implementations discriminated by its type. > > HernÃ¡n > > > > > > > 2014-12-08 3:18 GMT-03:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > > Hi, > > As you might see, the GTPlayground is called playground not workspace. The main reason for this is that workspace implies the place where work is done, and work is typically associated with creating code. > > This is not the intention of the workspace. > > Workspace also comes with a history that is associated with actual implementations. While the current GTPlayground might appear to be similar to the workspace, I think the way you can use the latter produces a significant shift. > > Furthermore, I think the term playground is more inline with the idea of "playing with live objects". And, in the future, the implementation will likely evolve towards even more liveliness. > > It is for this reason that I would prefer that the World menu item gets renamed to Playground. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Doru > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" > > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow"

Dec. 9, 2014

Recognise Stack Exchange Sites by Their Icon

by Yuriy Tymchuk

Hi, Iâve found this code puzzle: http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/42242/recognise-stack-exchange-… <http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/42242/recognise-stack-exchange-…> Do you think it can be implemented in a nice way in Pharo? Because other implementations look hyper obfuscated. Uko

Dec. 9, 2014