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

Re: [Pharo-dev] From IRC: is glorp dead?

by stepharo

>> On 07 Dec 2014, at 17:59, Ð®ÑÐ¸Ð¹ ÐÐ¸ÑÐ¾Ð½ÐµÐ½ÐºÐ¾ <assargaddon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> GLORP-based applications is main source of income for me for last several yers. It works just now. And it definetely works in Ubuntu x64, if it's important. And also works fine in Windows. > Yes, I know, but sometimes it is a bit difficult to set things up, giving all the different platforms. > > Since this is a recurring question, I would be super if you could write a short article about your experiences. +1 Let me know if I can help. I gathered a lot of glorp material other the years but I never program with it. > > Another simple Glorp introduction is https://medium.com/@svenvc/reddit-st-in-10-cool-pharo-classes-1b5327ca0740 > >> 2014-12-07 18:31 GMT+03:00 Brad <bsselfridge(a)gmail.com>: >> No, it's not dead, just pretty sleepy. I've got it working with MySQL on an Ubuntu 14.04 32bit OS, but not yet on a 64bit OS. >> >> Once I get my 64bit OS working, I'm going to work on getting Glorp/DBXTalk working for real business activity. >> >> Look here for some resources http://dbxtalk.smallworks.eu >> >> Brad Selfridge >> 913-269-2385 >> >>> On Dec 7, 2014, at 8:25 AM, Max Leske <maxleske(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> From the IRC: >>> >>> LudicrousMango: Hi can anyone tell me is Glorp dead? I was trying to evaluate pharo as a replacement for an existing rails project, but I can't even find a way of connecting to my postgresql database. >>> LudicrousMango: can someone help point me in the right direction. The Enterprise book leaves the setup part of glorp blank. >>> LudicrousMango: and the glorp.org site has expired >>> maxleske: LudicrousMango: good question. Iâll forward it to the dev mailing list >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Max >> > > >

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Alexandre Bergel

I do not completely buy the documentation argument. It is not a big deal saying when you read âWorkspaceâ in a book, it is actually âPlaygroundâ. People even figure this out alone. The code browser mentioned in Pharo by example is fairly different from the one we have currently. It even has a different name! But people can sort this out very quickly. Letâs move on, without caring much about old books. New books are being written and more will come. Letâs focus on making the system better! Cheers, Alexandre > On Dec 8, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > First, I want to say that in this special case I tend to be in agreement with Torsten. Because I also see playground as an evolution of the good old workspace. Also, most documentation still refers to that area as âworkspaceâ and not âplaygroundââ¦ and honestly I still do not understand why is *fundamentally* different. Inspectors are also really different and nevertheless we are still calling them inspectorsâ¦ I suppose we can do the same with playground/workspace. -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] untypeable key combination

by stepharo

Le 7/12/14 12:21, Nicolai Hess a Ã©crit : > We have a class KMUntypeableSingleKeyCombination > this is used for key kombinations with > tab > arrow > backspace .... > > This is useful for printing key kombinations like > Ctrl+TAB > > "space" does not use the KMUntypeableSingleKeyCombination class, therefore > a short cut like > Character space shift asKeyCombination > looks like > " Shift + " > > shouldn't space use this class? > And I find the name a little bit misleading, what is a untypeable key? > The key is typeable, otherwise we couldn't use it. > Renaming the class to KMUnprintableSingleKeyCombination > isn't better, because we can print this keycombination. > +1 > > nicolai >

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

More documentation is always better, but you can hardly accuse Doru from trying, he is making an excellent effort in explaining what he does and why, this is a lot of work, and I appreciate it very much. Note that he is also trying to convince others of alternative/new/experimental ideas, which is even harder. And apart from that, he (and his team) are not just talking, they write actual working code and make it available. Of course they get all sorts of feedback, that is why they do it, but please, please consider the amount of work and determination it costs to make all this real/useable and not just vapourware ! I have the utmost respect for what they are doing and how they are doing it. You (and other users) have a choice: you can keep using Pharo 3 and the tools there instead of going along with the development branch. Pharo 3 is meant for stable production use, it matches most of the current publications. There is pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org for normal beginner discussions, most users should ask questions there, not the other way around as it is today. I read both and try to help anyone the best I can. Sven > On 08 Dec 2014, at 13:56, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "But, those tools are already added. And they are documented on the humane-assessment.com blog, and this can serve as a strong basis for a more official documentation." > > my issue is not "when" but "whether" . If you want to wait out the release of Pharo 4 to make official documentation, thats fine by me . I take late documentation over no documentation, any day. > > The problem I see with Pharo and one factor I feel it may even lead to the demise of Pharo as a project is that we see new and very exciting sfuff added to Pharo like your tools, but the documentation part is lackaster to say the least. The real problem comes when the original author decides to abandon or not further develop his tools it becomes extremely difficult for new people to come in and contribute. The very fact that now we replace the old workspace with a new tool is the testament to this problem. I think the situation would be dramatically different if Worskpace was fully documented, both at the user level and developer level. Its afterall an extremely important tool for Pharo. If that was the case we would have seen a natural evolution of workspace which would have made Playground far less needed. > > So its not that I disagree just with you I disagree with the general management of Pharo that follows the mentality "let the new features in and we worry about the documentation later on". No , no and NO! > > I was recently asked by a newcomer to Pharo being a python developer himself whether he should invest in Pharo . He wanted my opinion because I have experience both in python and pharo . I was not suprised to find out that he struggled with the documentation and he was really reluctant to give Pharo a serious try. He loved the features and all that but his learning was a much bigger pain than his experience with python and other programming languages. I ended up recommending him to ask more question here in the mailing list and he replied he did not feel comfortable asking question that for him were "stupid". Can I blame him ? Of course not. He was not aware of many of the blog posts and other source of documentation that are not "official". > > Dont know who that person is and how important as a member would become for the Pharo community but I can clearly see his problems being common to anyone or almost anyone introduced to Pharo unless that person comes already with a Smalltalk background. > > What I do know is Pharo needs new people to come in and take it further and in order to do that we need to build a Pharo that is as inviting to newcomers as our abilities permits us to. Putting documentation as a second priority is a recipe to disaster. > > > > > > >

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Esteban Lorenzano

Okâ¦ several things :) First, I want to say that in this special case I tend to be in agreement with Torsten. Because I also see playground as an evolution of the good old workspace. Also, most documentation still refers to that area as âworkspaceâ and not âplaygroundââ¦ and honestly I still do not understand why is *fundamentally* different. Inspectors are also really different and nevertheless we are still calling them inspectorsâ¦ I suppose we can do the same with playground/workspace. Second, while I understand people tend to react conservative to changes, please guys understand that to keep tools inside image forever just does not scales and then requirements like âok for adding, but please let the old tools tooâ can not be a path to follow. Of course we are not going to remove immediately, but certainly during next cycle one of both will fade away. It has to be like that because to maintain everything forever requires exponential resourcesâ¦ and we cannot do that. Third, documentation is important but hard to produce in a reliable way. Also, documentation style in pharo (or any smalltalk) is fundamentally different than documentation in other systems. We have a system and a culture that empowers system exploration and that is the way we need to improve things: more examples *in system* is better than written documentation (and we have several books now of written documentation, is just that some of them is outdated). And yes, we still need to improve a lot in that areaâ¦ but we are not in zero, quite the oppositeâ¦ anyway, we will never have the kind of documentation that other system hasâ¦ Finally, fourthâ¦ we as a community has this tendency of start talking of A and end talking of Z. Like this threadâ¦ this was a question about the name of a tool. Not a discussion about lack of documentation or a feedback thread. All concerns are super valid, but talking about them in the incorrect place are causing me (and I think several others) to miss the importance of all things. So: documentation is another thread, and feedback is another thread. I agree with both of you, but if you put it here it will be lost because they become invisible, cheers, Esteban > On 08 Dec 2014, at 10:55, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > I would go the opposite direction and rename the "Playground" window to > "Workspace". > > Several reasons: > > 1. "Playground" reminds me too much on toyish things (and we had too much of this > in the past already, thats why Pharo was forked). The windows intention is to be > used for both: prototyping and serious stuff. > > 2. "Workspace" depicts the area where you usually work and this term is IMHO much much > better suited. It is also a common concept known not only in Smalltalk but also > other IDE's. > > 3. I do not understand where the significant shift is (that justifies a new name) as > we had similar tools already in the past. Basically it is a script space merged with > an inspector, so more an evolution instead of a revolution. > > (This does not mean that I'm not happy that the GT tools are now in and provide > such an easy to use extensibility!) > > 3. There is a "Workspace open" but no "Playground open" possibility. > > 4. Having two separate tools "Workspace" and "Playground" with nearly similar > goals (write scripts and inspect objects) would be confusing for newbees. > > Maybe we could set up a "community voting" somewhere. > > > > Other things I would like to see: > ================================= > A. Change to "double clicking" behavior instead of "single clicking" when diving > deeper into the iVars of objects. > > This would allow to use it as a normal inspector first without having > directly more and more panes opening to the right. > > Anytime I start with a script in the initial code pane it is moving away > when using "Do it and go" and clicking on my objects iVars in the right > list view. > > With a "double click" the user could decide hisself if he just wants to select > (single click to do any other menu item action) or dive deeper into the > object (double click). > > > B. Possibility to have splitters between the opened panes because sometimes the > area is not wide enough. > > C. When several windows are open the "playgrounds" can not be distinguished by > title in the world tool bar. > > Note that when I save a workspace contents the title of the workspace window > is changed to the *.ws file. > > D. Change the initial tab name to something more meaninful (related to C). > Or use a better timestamp representation as the current precision. As a human > I do not distinguish up to milliseconds when opening such a window. Maybe up to > seconds is enough. > > Using a tab is questionable by itself - we never have more than one on the > initial code pane... > > E. Easily saving in the cloud is nice - but I would ask the user before sending > it. This prevents wrong usage by accidentially clicking. > > Think of usage in a business scenario where you may work with confidential > data that would otherwise be posted on the web... > > > Thanks > T. > > > > > > > > >

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Tudor Girba

Hi Kilon, Please, let's get positive :). I really do not see how your remarks apply to the current situation. We put quite some effort in documenting GT tools through posts on the humane assessment blog (in the meantime, the page should be more reliable - I hope) and through examples in the image. We took specific care exactly in providing examples so that people can have something to guide themselves by. In fact, we did not release until we had those examples. Just look at the announcement of Spotter and you will see that it has a significant usage documentation. If it's not enough or not in the right place, you have to get specific and we can address those problems, but you cannot say that there is no documentation because that is simply not true. I think we have enough material to create a couple of chapters in a Pharo book, or even a book on its own, and I think it is reasonable to assume that given that the material is available we can find the rest of the effort to produce the "official" documentation. Cheers, Doru On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:56 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "But, those tools are already added. And they are documented on the > humane-assessment.com blog, and this can serve as a strong basis for a > more official documentation." > > my issue is not "when" but "whether" . If you want to wait out the release > of Pharo 4 to make official documentation, thats fine by me . I take late > documentation over no documentation, any day. > > The problem I see with Pharo and one factor I feel it may even lead to the > demise of Pharo as a project is that we see new and very exciting sfuff > added to Pharo like your tools, but the documentation part is lackaster to > say the least. The real problem comes when the original author decides to > abandon or not further develop his tools it becomes extremely difficult for > new people to come in and contribute. The very fact that now we replace the > old workspace with a new tool is the testament to this problem. I think the > situation would be dramatically different if Worskpace was fully > documented, both at the user level and developer level. Its afterall an > extremely important tool for Pharo. If that was the case we would have seen > a natural evolution of workspace which would have made Playground far less > needed. > > So its not that I disagree just with you I disagree with the general > management of Pharo that follows the mentality "let the new features in and > we worry about the documentation later on". No , no and NO! > > I was recently asked by a newcomer to Pharo being a python developer > himself whether he should invest in Pharo . He wanted my opinion because I > have experience both in python and pharo . I was not suprised to find out > that he struggled with the documentation and he was really reluctant to > give Pharo a serious try. He loved the features and all that but his > learning was a much bigger pain than his experience with python and other > programming languages. I ended up recommending him to ask more question > here in the mailing list and he replied he did not feel comfortable asking > question that for him were "stupid". Can I blame him ? Of course not. He > was not aware of many of the blog posts and other source of documentation > that are not "official". > > Dont know who that person is and how important as a member would become > for the Pharo community but I can clearly see his problems being common to > anyone or almost anyone introduced to Pharo unless that person comes > already with a Smalltalk background. > > What I do know is Pharo needs new people to come in and take it further > and in order to do that we need to build a Pharo that is as inviting to > newcomers as our abilities permits us to. Putting documentation as a second > priority is a recipe to disaster. > > > > > > > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by Alexandre Bergel

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> 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 > > "Every thing has its own flow" -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by phil＠highoctane.be

Le 8 dÃ©c. 2014 13:57, "kilon alios" <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : > > "But, those tools are already added. And they are documented on the humane-assessment.com blog, and this can serve as a strong basis for a more official documentation." > > my issue is not "when" but "whether" . If you want to wait out the release of Pharo 4 to make official documentation, thats fine by me . I take late documentation over no documentation, any day. > > The problem I see with Pharo and one factor I feel it may even lead to the demise of Pharo as a project is that we see new and very exciting sfuff added to Pharo like your tools, but the documentation part is lackaster to say the least. The real problem comes when the original author decides to abandon or not further develop his tools it becomes extremely difficult for new people to come in and contribute. The very fact that now we replace the old workspace with a new tool is the testament to this problem. I think the situation would be dramatically different if Worskpace was fully documented, both at the user level and developer level. Its afterall an extremely important tool for Pharo. If that was the case we would have seen a natural evolution of workspace which would have made Playground far less needed. > > So its not that I disagree just with you I disagree with the general management of Pharo that follows the mentality "let the new features in and we worry about the documentation later on". No , no and NO! > > I was recently asked by a newcomer to Pharo being a python developer himself whether he should invest in Pharo . He wanted my opinion because I have experience both in python and pharo . I was not suprised to find out that he struggled with the documentation and he was really reluctant to give Pharo a serious try. He loved the features and all that but his learning was a much bigger pain than his experience with python and other programming languages. I ended up recommending him to ask more question here in the mailing list and he replied he did not feel comfortable asking question that for him were "stupid". Can I blame him ? Of course not. He was not aware of many of the blog posts and other source of documentation that are not "official". Smalltalk vas always been a self selecting tool. Pharo is like that. The bluebook is great to learn a lot. As are a lot of free books. But ppl do not read them it seems... Now tell me a lot of R and Node packages are well documented... Argh. No. They happen to have a lot of Q&A on SO. Phik > > Dont know who that person is and how important as a member would become for the Pharo community but I can clearly see his problems being common to anyone or almost anyone introduced to Pharo unless that person comes already with a Smalltalk background. > > What I do know is Pharo needs new people to come in and take it further and in order to do that we need to build a Pharo that is as inviting to newcomers as our abilities permits us to. Putting documentation as a second priority is a recipe to disaster. > > > > > > >

Dec. 8, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] playground vs workspace

by kilon alios

"But, those tools are already added. And they are documented on the humane-assessment.com blog, and this can serve as a strong basis for a more official documentation." my issue is not "when" but "whether" . If you want to wait out the release of Pharo 4 to make official documentation, thats fine by me . I take late documentation over no documentation, any day. The problem I see with Pharo and one factor I feel it may even lead to the demise of Pharo as a project is that we see new and very exciting sfuff added to Pharo like your tools, but the documentation part is lackaster to say the least. The real problem comes when the original author decides to abandon or not further develop his tools it becomes extremely difficult for new people to come in and contribute. The very fact that now we replace the old workspace with a new tool is the testament to this problem. I think the situation would be dramatically different if Worskpace was fully documented, both at the user level and developer level. Its afterall an extremely important tool for Pharo. If that was the case we would have seen a natural evolution of workspace which would have made Playground far less needed. So its not that I disagree just with you I disagree with the general management of Pharo that follows the mentality "let the new features in and we worry about the documentation later on". No , no and NO! I was recently asked by a newcomer to Pharo being a python developer himself whether he should invest in Pharo . He wanted my opinion because I have experience both in python and pharo . I was not suprised to find out that he struggled with the documentation and he was really reluctant to give Pharo a serious try. He loved the features and all that but his learning was a much bigger pain than his experience with python and other programming languages. I ended up recommending him to ask more question here in the mailing list and he replied he did not feel comfortable asking question that for him were "stupid". Can I blame him ? Of course not. He was not aware of many of the blog posts and other source of documentation that are not "official". Dont know who that person is and how important as a member would become for the Pharo community but I can clearly see his problems being common to anyone or almost anyone introduced to Pharo unless that person comes already with a Smalltalk background. What I do know is Pharo needs new people to come in and take it further and in order to do that we need to build a Pharo that is as inviting to newcomers as our abilities permits us to. Putting documentation as a second priority is a recipe to disaster.

Dec. 8, 2014

Morphic3 and BPG

by Torsten Bergmann

Hi, Found the below one somewhere on the internet today. To the graphic gurus: any comments regarding Morphic 3 or the new BPG format in the context of Pharo? Thx T. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CUIS Smalltalk-80 GUI algorithm now available in C, JS! Maybe, some people haven't yet noticed, that CUIS Smalltalk GUI uses a completely different antialiasing algorithm. Excellent MORPHIC-3, antialiased: http://www.jvuletich.org/Morphic3/Morphic3-200911.html The filter is named after Cornelius Lanczos (Hungarian pronunciation: [ ËlaËntsoÊ]) Lanczos resampling or Lanczos filter is a mathematical formula used to smoothly interpolate the value of a digital signal between its samples. So, no more artefacts! Resulting in a 3x higher compression without significant loss of image quality. Isn't that just wonderful? Here Fabrice Bellard's implementation: http://bellard.org/bpg/lena.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dec. 8, 2014