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

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Frank Shearar

On 29 April 2014 03:48, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Esteban A. Maringolo wrote >> Plays well with "choose your favorite text editor" (Sublime, Vim, >> etc.) and IDEs (RubyMine, etc.), with source control systems (any file >> based system), with unix in general (several cli commands), has >> binding for any major/mainstream library* (databases, network, etc.). > > But again these boil down to community size/interest > - To use "your favorite text editor", Craig Latta serves Smalltalk via > WebDav [1], but who has jumped at this opportunity? > - source control - now that there is community interest, progress on git > support has been moving ahead rapidly with minimal resources > - unix in general - with FFI and OSProcess, what can't you do? Are we > talking about the lack of cool Ruby backtick syntax? While definitely cool, > that special-purpose syntax is the kind of cognitive load Smalltalk > overcomes. All those little syntactical twists and turns to remember lead > away from "syntax on a T-shirt" to manuals with hundreds of pages > - bindings - again, obviously just a question of community size and interest Backtick syntax is largely bogus anyway. It's a minor string interpolation trick with a special evaluation strategy. And I entirely agree that Ruby has (way, WAY) too much syntax. > So the "play well with others" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are no > bindings because there are no people to write them because there are no > bindings... At inception, Ruby (and every other language) didn't have those > bindings either. That's largely true, in the sense that someone needs to grab a shovel to dig that trench. But if you start out with an external text editor, with an external version control system, with (only) stdout/stderr/stdin, you end up building a different system than if you're already in an insular environment and want/need to learn to "play well with others". Ruby plays well with other - interfaces well with external systems - precisely because it didn't have that integrated environment. Now sure, back in 1976 Smalltalk didn't either, but we're here in 2014, 18 years after Squeak budded off Apple Smalltalk: a tightly integrated environment is what we started from. frank > [1] > http://thiscontext.com/2011/06/09/my-favorite-text-editor-editing-a-spoon-w… > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756900… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Esteban Lorenzano

On 29 Apr 2014, at 02:24, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: > Tudor Girba-2 wrote >> There is a point of view from which one could say that >> Pharo is Smalltalk by seeing Smalltalk as a movement, rather than specific >> implementation. Unfortunately, everyone else thinks of Smalltalk as a >> specific language, or set of languages with specific environments that >> typically look old enough to not be relevant anymore. > > Yes! This is a tower of babel argument. > For almost every programmer alive, Smaltalk = Smalltalk 80 -> Pharo is > Smalltalk-inspired > For us, Smaltalk = "experimental Dynabook software that bootstraps itself > (ideally every 4 years)" -> Pharo is Smalltalk 109. > > So it's a question of who you're marketing to. Since we're marketing to > non-Smalltalkers (quite wise since 16% market penetration is the tipping > point [1], and we're not there yet), clearly "Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired" > is the thing to say. It's not any more or less true than the latter, just > more useful in its context. > > [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action +100 is not about âwhat is or what is not pharoâ, is about how we spread it. all of us know that pharo is a smalltalk, but âusâ is the 600 people of this list. there is a world outside. And I even would say: a brave world (yet not so new). So the question is how we reach them (or at least more of them). You are losing time arguing something that does not have any sense because is clear (for us) what pharo is. Thatâs not the discussion. Not at all. This is a true story: (eve-online chat, the more nerd of the games around, aprox. 25% of their players are programmers or systems-related) X>So, what do you do? me>Iâm a programmer X>yes, me tooâ¦ but what do you do? me>Pharo, a kind of Smalltalk X>What? me>a Smalltalk X>Is not that an old long time dead language? how is possible to work on it? me> [LONG EXPLANATION] X>I never knew anyone who programs in that. I do games, so I program in C++â¦ me>but you know that *this* game is made in Python, isnât? X>yes, but Python is modern, even if not as powerful as C++ me>plop And like that, it happened several times. Soâ¦ until someone demonstrate that the majority of the programming community in the world does not have a pre-concept around Smalltalk, I sustain that we need to present our supergreat environment in better ways that just step there saying âlook the magnificent smalltalkâ! Btwâ¦ Gilad did same thing with newspeak: He said âis in the tradition ofâ with is just another way of saying âis smalltalk/self-inspiredâ. And another btw: I do agree with Gilad: Newspeak is not Smalltalk (same as Self is not)â¦ They share a tradition, but if we can say that Newspeak and Self are âSmalltalksâ we need to say that Java and C# are âC plus plusesâ. cheers, Esteban > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756891… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by S Krish

"So it's a question of who you're marketing to. Since we're marketing to non-Smalltalkers (quite wise since 16% market penetration is the tipping point [1], and we're not there yet)" If you can get Pharo Smalltalk to be what makes people feel great about using it and creating great applications with, it will succeed far more than Ruby has in 5 years ahead. We need not push our efforts and energy in labelling ( falsely ), that will give no impact / or add any value to the perception of people. Java succeeded because it enabled many to move on to the web enabled world.. massively.. Rails succeeded because developers found it easier and simpler to bring up a complete website and maintain it than its alternatives. JRuby helped in as much Heroku did in its growth. Many developers made their fortune out of Rails.. iPad, iPhone, iPod, now android phones / tablets succeed well and truly because they enable the people to do what they want with it, make them feel great about using them too and bigger bet was developing for the Appstore and Android Market place that enabled many more to make money. Can we move on to have a Pharo Appstore with a demand for the apps in the store ... you will see more than 16% share you will need to make Pharo big. http://skrishnamachari.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/pharo-is-a-smalltalk-dialec… On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 5:54 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>wrote: > Tudor Girba-2 wrote > > There is a point of view from which one could say that > > Pharo is Smalltalk by seeing Smalltalk as a movement, rather than > specific > > implementation. Unfortunately, everyone else thinks of Smalltalk as a > > specific language, or set of languages with specific environments that > > typically look old enough to not be relevant anymore. > > Yes! This is a tower of babel argument. > For almost every programmer alive, Smaltalk = Smalltalk 80 -> Pharo is > Smalltalk-inspired > For us, Smaltalk = "experimental Dynabook software that bootstraps itself > (ideally every 4 years)" -> Pharo is Smalltalk 109. > > So it's a question of who you're marketing to. Since we're marketing to > non-Smalltalkers (quite wise since 16% market penetration is the tipping > point [1], and we're not there yet), clearly "Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired" > is the thing to say. It's not any more or less true than the latter, just > more useful in its context. > > [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756891… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Sean P. DeNigris

Esteban A. Maringolo wrote > Plays well with "choose your favorite text editor" (Sublime, Vim, > etc.) and IDEs (RubyMine, etc.), with source control systems (any file > based system), with unix in general (several cli commands), has > binding for any major/mainstream library* (databases, network, etc.). But again these boil down to community size/interest - To use "your favorite text editor", Craig Latta serves Smalltalk via WebDav [1], but who has jumped at this opportunity? - source control - now that there is community interest, progress on git support has been moving ahead rapidly with minimal resources - unix in general - with FFI and OSProcess, what can't you do? Are we talking about the lack of cool Ruby backtick syntax? While definitely cool, that special-purpose syntax is the kind of cognitive load Smalltalk overcomes. All those little syntactical twists and turns to remember lead away from "syntax on a T-shirt" to manuals with hundreds of pages - bindings - again, obviously just a question of community size and interest So the "play well with others" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are no bindings because there are no people to write them because there are no bindings... At inception, Ruby (and every other language) didn't have those bindings either. [1] http://thiscontext.com/2011/06/09/my-favorite-text-editor-editing-a-spoon-w… ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756900… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Esteban A. Maringolo

2014-04-28 21:42 GMT-03:00 Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com>: > Yes, it was very fair and a nice bridge between the Ruby and Smalltalk > communities i.e. not too elitist. +1 > kilon alios wrote >> I also completely agree with his criticism on smalltalk of... not playing >> well with >> others > I think this has always been a red herring. How exactly does Ruby "play well > with others"? Wth does that mean? Plays well with "choose your favorite text editor" (Sublime, Vim, etc.) and IDEs (RubyMine, etc.), with source control systems (any file based system), with unix in general (several cli commands), has binding for any major/mainstream library* (databases, network, etc.). And even has a VM that runs on top of a Smalltalk one :) Of course some of the "play well with others" decisions can restrict what you can do (as it certainly did with ruby), but they certainly play better. IMHO. > If we're talking about e.g. native windows, Ruby has bindings to GUI > libraries because it has a community big enough that is interested-in-that > enough to write them. In fact IIRC, someone wrote GTK bindings for > Squeak/Pharo, but there was little user interest and they took their code > elsewhere. There's no difference in that regard. When it comes to GUIs, any binding in langs is more a proof of concept than anything else, there are no "killer apps" written in Ruby that uses native GUIs (by means of Gtk, Qt, etc.). And I'd bet my balls (the golf ones ;-) that no single person comes to Ruby world to develop with Gtk bindings or similar. And a few years ago I'd say that no one came to ruby for other thing than Rails. Same goes for PHP, and other web based software. Maybe I'm totally mistaken, but today demand is web UI or an API. Considering the jobs request, no one is developing with native GUI any longer, except for those doing mobile development (Android/iOS); and that's because HTML5/JS is still slow/immature to replace the native alternatives. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Sean P. DeNigris

kilon alios wrote > Watched it once more and now it clear that he presented Smalltalk in a > very fair > manner Yes, it was very fair and a nice bridge between the Ruby and Smalltalk communities i.e. not too elitist. kilon alios wrote > I also completely agree with his criticism on smalltalk of... not playing > well with > others I think this has always been a red herring. How exactly does Ruby "play well with others"? Wth does that mean? If we're talking about e.g. native windows, Ruby has bindings to GUI libraries because it has a community big enough that is interested-in-that enough to write them. In fact IIRC, someone wrote GTK bindings for Squeak/Pharo, but there was little user interest and they took their code elsewhere. There's no difference in that regard. Another barrier of course, is that binding to external UI libraries in a way violates the turtles-all-the-way-down principle of Smalltalk and would only be a kludge until you could replace them with an implementation that was part of the live, uniform system. Although if not being satisfied with a system that is complicated beyond human comprehension is "not playing well with others", perhaps you should reconsider your friendships ha ha ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756895… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Sean P. DeNigris

Tudor Girba-2 wrote > There is a point of view from which one could say that > Pharo is Smalltalk by seeing Smalltalk as a movement, rather than specific > implementation. Unfortunately, everyone else thinks of Smalltalk as a > specific language, or set of languages with specific environments that > typically look old enough to not be relevant anymore. Yes! This is a tower of babel argument. For almost every programmer alive, Smaltalk = Smalltalk 80 -> Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired For us, Smaltalk = "experimental Dynabook software that bootstraps itself (ideally every 4 years)" -> Pharo is Smalltalk 109. So it's a question of who you're marketing to. Since we're marketing to non-Smalltalkers (quite wise since 16% market penetration is the tipping point [1], and we're not there yet), clearly "Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired" is the thing to say. It's not any more or less true than the latter, just more useful in its context. [1] http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/a-Pharo-talk-from-a-ruby-conference-tp4756805p4756891… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 29, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by phil＠highoctane.be

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:24 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Phil, > > 2014-04-28 17:07 GMT-03:00 phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>: > > What no REPL? Check this: > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3067563/using-squeak-from-a-shell > > > > "Works out of the box in Pharo 2.0. For prior versions (definitely works > in > > 1.3 and 1.4), first file in https://gist.github.com/2602113" > > I'm not saying it is not doable, if we have workspaces we can have > something simple as a REPL (as your snippet shows). > > But it is not as prominent as a workspace. And of course it doesn't > come bundled in the core image :) > > E.g. Think of the Javascript console in Chrome Developer Tools, where > the console can work as a Workspace, a Transcript and an Inspector all > in one. > > Or, think of python or ruby's irb. > Nothing precludes us from having just that. Topez in Gemstone does just that no? Phil > > > Esteban A. Maringolo > >

April 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Hi Phil, 2014-04-28 17:07 GMT-03:00 phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>: > What no REPL? Check this: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3067563/using-squeak-from-a-shell > > "Works out of the box in Pharo 2.0. For prior versions (definitely works in > 1.3 and 1.4), first file in https://gist.github.com/2602113" I'm not saying it is not doable, if we have workspaces we can have something simple as a REPL (as your snippet shows). But it is not as prominent as a workspace. And of course it doesn't come bundled in the core image :) E.g. Think of the Javascript console in Chrome Developer Tools, where the console can work as a Workspace, a Transcript and an Inspector all in one. Or, think of python or ruby's irb. Esteban A. Maringolo

April 28, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] a Pharo talk from a ruby conference

by Tudor Girba

Hi Eliot, On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>wrote: > >> Hi Eliot, >> >> I know we went through it, and we still disagree :). I have provided >> detailed arguments and I have seen no others that did refute mine. >> > > OK, I'll bite :-). Point me to the arguments and I'll have a go at > refutation. > Besides the points laid out in the discussions on this mailing list, I provided an initial argument here: http://www.tudorgirba.com/blog/pharo-is-pharo > But my statement that Pharo is a Smalltalk boils own to the facts that > Smalltalk has always evolved > I agree on that. There is a point of view from which one could say that Pharo is Smalltalk by seeing Smalltalk as a movement, rather than specific implementation. Unfortunately, everyone else thinks of Smalltalk as a specific language, or set of languages with specific environments that typically look old enough to not be relevant anymore. (Multiple inheritance was a discarded experiment that is in Smalltalk-80 > for example, Tweak contains a sort-of slot idea, as another) and that > Pharo's evolutions are no different to other evolutions that have enriched > Smalltalk but not redefined it, and that one way to tell is to see if the > VM or instruction set needs to be radically different to implement the > system efficiently. So there's nothing un-Smalltalk about traits, or slots > or a modular compiler. > This is where our points diverge significantly. Just because Closure or JRuby run on a Java VM does not make them Java. They are their own languages. Similarly, just because Newspeak runs pretty much the same VM as Squeak or Pharo does not make it a Smalltalk either (according to the webpage it is a new programming language in the tradition of Self and Smalltalk). Things that want to have an identity should be allowed to get it as long as the due credits are acknowledged. Saying that there is nothing un-Smalltalk about slots, or compiler or traits and all sorts of other things is not incorrect, but saying that the same things are not defined by Smalltalk is not incorrect either. The point of view matters. As for deciding how much of difference should there be until we are not to be associated with the original, I would leave that to lawyers that have to do it. I will focus on trying to market a fantastic environment and community. But, there is another point, too. "Pharo is Smalltalk-inspired" is not just factual but also a statement of intention. We do not want to necessarily be Smalltalk. If the future proves that some decisions made in Smalltalk are good we will make them, too. Otherwise we will take other routes. That's a promise :) I am certainly open to talking about it. I have no intention of lying or >> hiding. I am rather proud to be part of this community and to do my bit of >> contributing. >> > > Us both. > > >> But, please understand that my main concern is getting Pharo adopted >> which is what other Smalltalk rooted systems did not really manage until >> now. There are many ways to say the same thing. Some people will resonate >> with some messages, and some others will pick holes in them. I will focus >> on increasing the first set of people while preserving the semantics I >> believe in. >> > > Quite. Agreed. > > Great :) Doru > >> Doru >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>wrote: >>> >>>> That is why we talk about Pharo as a cool, modern environment and >>>> language that is Smalltalk-inspired. >>>> >>> >>> We went through this a few months ago. Pharo isn't inspired by >>> Smalltalk; it /is/ a Smalltalk. Trying to be mealy-mouthed about it and >>> claiming inspiration, rather than proudly declaring its a Smalltalk is IMO >>> as bad as apologizing for it being dead. >>> >>> >>>> We do not need to apologize because Pharo was never dead :). >>>> >>> >>> We don't need to avoid the S word either... >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Doru >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Am 28.04.2014 um 18:58 schrieb kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: >>>>> >>>>> very cool presentation. Definitely you need to add this to the new >>>>> website. >>>>> >>>>> Question : Why in every presentation we have to apologise why >>>>> smalltalk is dead / extinct ? >>>>> >>>>> As a newcomer to Smalltalk I find it quite annoying. Its not as if I >>>>> came to Smalltalk without knowing that is not popular. The vast majority of >>>>> languages out there are so more unpopular than Smalltalk, yet they don't >>>>> have this "sorry that I am dead" mentality to them. >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Well said. >>>>> >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> â¦ more a Smalltalk one using Pharo: >>>>>> >>>>>> MountainWest RubyConf 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> Noel Rappin: "But Really, You Should Learn Smalltalkâ >>>>>> >>>>>> Smalltalk has mystique. We talk about it more than we use it. It >>>>>> seems like it should be so similar to Ruby. It has similar Object-Oriented >>>>>> structures, it even has blocks. But everything is so slightly different, >>>>>> from the programming environment, to the 1-based arrays, to the simple >>>>>> syntax. Using Smalltalk will make you look at familiar constructs with new >>>>>> eyes. Weâll show you how to get started on Smalltalk, and walk through some >>>>>> sample code. Live coding may be involved. Youâll never look at objects the >>>>>> same way again. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.confreaks.com/videos/3284-mwrc-but-really-you-should-learn-small… >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>> >>>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> best, >>> Eliot >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > > > > -- > best, > Eliot > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

April 28, 2014