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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Configuration Browser and Pharo4

by Nicolai Hess

Great, it works. Thank you. 2014-06-19 23:34 GMT+02:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > you can change #metacelloPlatformAttributes to accept Pharo3 stable > versions. > â¦ at your own risk, of course :) > > Esteban > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 18:31, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > > > How can I make configurations from > > MetaRepoPharo30 work on Pharo4? > > > > I have switched the Repository from > > MetaRepoPhar40 to MetaRepoPharo30 and > > tried to load NaCl (Install stable version). > > It fails with 'Name not found: FFI' > > And ConfigurationOfFFI doesn't load either. > > > > > > btw, If I loaded a ConfigurationOfXXX how do I know > > what versions are loadable? Should all ConfigurationOf projects > > have the same symbolic versions (development/stable/ ...) > > > > > > regards > > Nicolai > >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Configuration Browser and Pharo4

by Esteban Lorenzano

you can change #metacelloPlatformAttributes to accept Pharo3 stable versions. â¦ at your own risk, of course :) Esteban On 19 Jun 2014, at 18:31, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess(a)web.de> wrote: > How can I make configurations from > MetaRepoPharo30 work on Pharo4? > > I have switched the Repository from > MetaRepoPhar40 to MetaRepoPharo30 and > tried to load NaCl (Install stable version). > It fails with 'Name not found: FFI' > And ConfigurationOfFFI doesn't load either. > > > btw, If I loaded a ConfigurationOfXXX how do I know > what versions are loadable? Should all ConfigurationOf projects > have the same symbolic versions (development/stable/ ...) > > > regards > Nicolai

June 19, 2014

Configuration Browser and Pharo4

by Nicolai Hess

How can I make configurations from MetaRepoPharo30 work on Pharo4? I have switched the Repository from MetaRepoPhar40 to MetaRepoPharo30 and tried to load NaCl (Install stable version). It fails with 'Name not found: FFI' And ConfigurationOfFFI doesn't load either. btw, If I loaded a ConfigurationOfXXX how do I know what versions are loadable? Should all ConfigurationOf projects have the same symbolic versions (development/stable/ ...) regards Nicolai

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by kilon alios

I am not debating well written code. Readable code must always be the No 1 priority . The questions is can you really rely on it ? Because in the end design decisions will be made , or people will not agree on what "beautiful code" really is. So I think aim for beautiful code, expect ugly code, be realistic. Or as they say "have head in the cloud and feet on the ground". I am also not debating the beauty of Smalltalk and Lisp. There is a reason so many things are copied from these languages. Objective C and Ruby state that are based on Smalltalk , so I definitely respect and appreciate what a simple syntax can do for a flexible expression of a coder. All I am saying is that people may dislike Smalltalk for things unrelated to the design of the code and the nature of the language. For me its documentation, for others may be other things. Its not as simple as simple syntax ;) On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: >> >> >>> On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not >>> really simple. >>> > >>> > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding >>> experience. Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things >>> that Pharo / Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts >>> associated with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I >>> don't care about languages that theoretically are great. >>> > >>> > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe >>> because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am >>> not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like >>> an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. >>> But I don't stop learning . >>> > >>> > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more >>> difficult to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on >>> Smalltalk seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference >>> documentation and I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading >>> code is very very very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read >>> code, additionally I don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no >>> comments. >>> >> > Great first part of your comment Kilon. Yes, the language is far simpler, > but the libraries, oh the libraries, and the doc. But doc is not > necessarily the problem. Examples can be good. There needs to be lots of > effort put into tutorials, examples, etc. > > But I have to say that reading code can be a joy, and really educational, > even if with no comments, _provided_ it is well-written. That's one of the > things that's really special about SMalltalk, support for reading, both in > the syntax and in the tools (senders, implementors, class comments). Get > over your antipathy and read as much as you can. Its a good route to > mastery. > > >> >>> Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. >>> >> > +1 > > >> >>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html >>> >>> First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the >>> creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >>> >> >>> >>> Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any >>> kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a >>> pretty low level - that is really amazing. >>> >>> Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a >>> key skill. >>> >>> Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or >>> written in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything >>> documented. And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. >>> >>> But we are moving forward in the right direction. >>> >>> >> Yep, I forgot that I learned with Smalltalk/V and st80... I think I had >> read all the code base after two or three years, blue book included. >> Learning with Squeak/Pharo certainly put the hurdle a bit high... I don't >> think I will ever read the whole... >> I'd say maybe try and teach with Cuis? >> > > Good idea. Learning with Smalltalk-80 V2 was such a joy. You could read > and understand everything. It led to a feeling of mastery. Being able to > hack the compiler, modify tools, etc. Lovely. Small is beautiful. > > > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks >>> nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I >>> know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the >>> syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to >>> read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate >>> reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see >>> how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless >>> he does not real understand what he learned. >>> > >>> > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and >>> the Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at >>> #emacs in IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full >>> blown language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" >>> , "No its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is >>> history. >>> > >>> > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest >>> language I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack >>> of documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think >>> however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and >>> me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and >>> directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in >>> this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing >>> is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest >>> way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero >>> delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I >>> would be around as long as it follows them. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met >>> it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many >>> problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and >>> Smalltalk had them all. >>> > >>> > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I >>> see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) >>> Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's >>> how it is. >>> > >>> > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says >>> "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is >>> hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's >>> message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) >>> > >>> > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based >>> on few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), >>> has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). >>> Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet >>> it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day >>> by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity >>> anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that >>> anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be >>> uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not >>> embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can >>> admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) >>> > >>> > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. >>> simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be >>> easily googled if need be. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Dennis Schetinin >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < >>> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: >>> > >>> > Simple ~= Easy. >>> > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not >>> easy (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Intersting... >>> > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I >>> would have thought the exact contrary... >>> > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? >>> > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler >>> than Smalltalk? >>> > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is >>> less than difference to Smalltalk? >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Dennis Schetinin >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: >>> > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake >>> oil marketing" to me. >>> > >>> > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other >>> programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be >>> further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo >>> is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have >>> to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that >>> Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you >>> need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will >>> be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say >>> python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this >>> simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may >>> come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, >>> but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. >>> > >>> > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and >>> demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly >>> better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will >>> benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly >>> braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: >>> > >>> > exampleWithNumber: x >>> > | y | >>> > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. >>> > y := self size + super size. >>> > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) >>> > do: [ :each | >>> > Transcript show: (each class name); >>> > show: ' ']. >>> > ^x < y >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Uko >>> > >>> > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >> >>> >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph >>> Johnson. >>> >> >>> >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >>> >> >>> >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >>> >> >>> >> Oscar >>> >> >>> >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> I guess itâs here: >>> http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a >>> postcard. It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for >>> newcomers and also as some king of souvenir. >>> >>> >>> >>> Uko >>> >>> >>> >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real >>> postcard. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Stef >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was >>> there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really >>> interesting. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Uko >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > best, > Eliot >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] vm over android

by kilon alios

"I disagree here. As an example, Android is switching its JIT runtime for an AOT one, because with JIT the performance (mostly related with UI perception) is slower than its iOS counterpart even when running on better hardware. Most of the popular apps use native multithreading intensively to maximize responsiveness. Pharo (as an organization) can't compete with that level of optimization, it doesn't have the budget for it. " Its not about competition, its about "hey guys may have a tiny slice of the cake ? I can ? thanks I will be here in my corner" Also the more powerful the hardware will become the less need would be to have true multithreading. I am not saying its very important but lets face it even on a single core you can do pretty amazing stuff. Right now mobile devices are quite slow even for basic stuff but the hardware only gets faster. "Do you really want to have Pharo (for development) in a 5" screen? Or even in a 10" tablet? Have you tried using it? I did, and played around for a while. It was impressive that it ran bit identically. But that's all. " As I said you can connect your mobile device to any monitor you want, you want 20'' fine , 30'' sure, 40'' why not , 1000'' oh yeah as long it has an hdmi port. The bottom line is that almost everyone will have a smartphone phone . Is this a market as a pharo developer you want to tap in ? It already has happened in USA and most of Europe , even here in Greece with big economical crisis people buy mainly smartphones and some even spend substantial amounts. iPhones actually are pretty popular here too. "I'm not aware of a trend to have IntelliJ/Eclipse and/or XCode running on mobile devices, even when there is less "technology impedance" between their programming language and the supporting platform." This is why I said we are not there yet, but is getting there. For example there is an Emacs port , though it requires external keyboard. Its not that it cannot be done, its more about moving a very big code base takes a lot of time and effort. But once again remember that its about the users not the developers. Developer did not move to the web because they like, actually most people I have talked to dislike and some even hate it. But its a very big market and a market with a very solid future in a world with economic uncertainty. 4 years ago, I remember arguing in music forums that music mobile apps will become serious tools even for professionals, back when ipad was first released, many people laughed at me, other though it was a possibility , some were sceptical . I was almost certain. 4 years later here we are, loads of music apps on mobile devices and their even artists that use solely mobile devices for music production with some help from Dekstops toos for final touches. What will happen in the next 4 years ? I was not successful trying Pharo , I tried Squeak but the multitouch was problematic as hell. Pharo claims "its modern" , but for me no language or software can claim that unless its taps to the mobile market. Unless the software is so demanding that it needs loads of raw performance that a mobile device cannot offer. But even that last front will slowly fall. Its not that Desktops will not be the fastest / most powerful option but mobile devices will become loads more powerful. Imagine what will happen if the smartphone of the future is 1000 times more powerful lets say in 30 years , imagine what you could do with that technology. Should Pharo see 30 years in the future ? If it has learned anything from the mistakes of Smalltalk , it should. About the cloud option, I have to say I am not a huge believer in cloud technology. I think for developed countries its a very good solution BUT many countries out there, including mine, have extremely unreliable internet connections. Browsers have seen this need and loads of options for offline storage has been offered, though it has become quite a confusing mess. So yeah cloud with offline storage is a good recipe , Pharo on the cloud is definetly a good option. Pharo + Amber is something I have recommended many times. So yes I agree with you there, but that does not make me dislike the idea of a VM on android and iOS. Why ? because web technology is a huge pile of mess, its a pain in the ass. Are Amber people going to wrap all this technology for us to make it easier to use ? probably not. So I still like to fully use Pharo. But Amber is a very good option too. So yes I think Pharo on mobile devices, however that happens is not the near future Pharo but its absolutely the distant future.

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by Eliot Miranda

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > >> On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not >> really simple. >> > >> > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding >> experience. Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things >> that Pharo / Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts >> associated with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I >> don't care about languages that theoretically are great. >> > >> > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe >> because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am >> not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like >> an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. >> But I don't stop learning . >> > >> > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more >> difficult to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on >> Smalltalk seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference >> documentation and I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading >> code is very very very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read >> code, additionally I don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no >> comments. >> > Great first part of your comment Kilon. Yes, the language is far simpler, but the libraries, oh the libraries, and the doc. But doc is not necessarily the problem. Examples can be good. There needs to be lots of effort put into tutorials, examples, etc. But I have to say that reading code can be a joy, and really educational, even if with no comments, _provided_ it is well-written. That's one of the things that's really special about SMalltalk, support for reading, both in the syntax and in the tools (senders, implementors, class comments). Get over your antipathy and read as much as you can. Its a good route to mastery. > >> Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. >> > +1 > >> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html >> >> First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the >> creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >> >> >> >> Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any >> kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a >> pretty low level - that is really amazing. >> >> Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a key >> skill. >> >> Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or written >> in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything documented. >> And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. >> >> But we are moving forward in the right direction. >> >> > Yep, I forgot that I learned with Smalltalk/V and st80... I think I had > read all the code base after two or three years, blue book included. > Learning with Squeak/Pharo certainly put the hurdle a bit high... I don't > think I will ever read the whole... > I'd say maybe try and teach with Cuis? > Good idea. Learning with Smalltalk-80 V2 was such a joy. You could read and understand everything. It led to a feeling of mastery. Being able to hack the compiler, modify tools, etc. Lovely. Small is beautiful. > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks >> nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I >> know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the >> syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to >> read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate >> reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see >> how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless >> he does not real understand what he learned. >> > >> > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and >> the Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at >> #emacs in IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full >> blown language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" >> , "No its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is >> history. >> > >> > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language >> I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of >> documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think >> however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and >> me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and >> directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in >> this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing >> is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest >> way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero >> delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I >> would be around as long as it follows them. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met >> it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many >> problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and >> Smalltalk had them all. >> > >> > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I >> see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) >> Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's >> how it is. >> > >> > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says >> "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is >> hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's >> message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) >> > >> > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on >> few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), >> has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). >> Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet >> it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day >> by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity >> anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that >> anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be >> uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not >> embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can >> admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) >> > >> > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. >> simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be >> easily googled if need be. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > Dennis Schetinin >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < >> nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: >> > >> > Simple ~= Easy. >> > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy >> (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). >> > >> > >> > >> > Intersting... >> > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I >> would have thought the exact contrary... >> > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? >> > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler >> than Smalltalk? >> > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is >> less than difference to Smalltalk? >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > Dennis Schetinin >> > >> > >> > >> > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: >> > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake >> oil marketing" to me. >> > >> > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other >> programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be >> further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo >> is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have >> to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that >> Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you >> need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will >> be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say >> python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this >> simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may >> come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, >> but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. >> > >> > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and >> demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly >> better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will >> benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> >> wrote: >> > Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly >> braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: >> > >> > exampleWithNumber: x >> > | y | >> > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. >> > y := self size + super size. >> > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) >> > do: [ :each | >> > Transcript show: (each class name); >> > show: ' ']. >> > ^x < y >> > >> > >> > >> > Uko >> > >> > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph >> Johnson. >> >> >> >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >> >> >> >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >> >> >> >> Oscar >> >> >> >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >> >>> >> >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. >> It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers >> and also as some king of souvenir. >> >>> >> >>> Uko >> >>> >> >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real >> postcard. >> >>>> >> >>>> Stef >> >>>> >> >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >> >>>>> Hi guys, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was >> there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really >> interesting. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Uko >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > -- best, Eliot

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Base62/Base36

by Alexandre Bergel

Thanks Norbert, This is a nice library! Alexandre On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > Just for the record. Iâve uploaded a package to smalltalkhub that contains util classes to en-/decode values into/from Base62/Base36. > > Base62/Base36 encode numbers in short strings. These are used e.g. by url shortener services from google, bit.ly etc. > > Base36 uses lowercase letters and numbers to encode, Base62 uses all characters from Base36 plus all uppercase letters. Base62 produces smaller strings while Base36 produces case insensitive ones. > > Example: > > Base62 fromNumber: 100000 -> 'q0Uâ > > Base36 fromNumber: 100000 -> â255s' > > FYI, > > Norbert > > -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by Nicolas Cellier

2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not > really simple. > > > > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience. > Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo / > Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts associated > with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I don't care > about languages that theoretically are great. > > > > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe > because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am > not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like > an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. > But I don't stop learning . > > > > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more difficult > to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on Smalltalk > seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference documentation and > I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading code is very very > very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read code, additionally I > don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no comments. > > Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. > > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html > > First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the creative > spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >> > > Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any > kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a > pretty low level - that is really amazing. > > Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a key > skill. > > Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or written > in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything documented. > And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. > > But we are moving forward in the right direction. > > Yep, I forgot that I learned with Smalltalk/V and st80... I think I had read all the code base after two or three years, blue book included. Learning with Squeak/Pharo certainly put the hurdle a bit high... I don't think I will ever read the whole... I'd say maybe try and teach with Cuis? > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks > nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I > know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the > syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to > read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate > reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see > how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless > he does not real understand what he learned. > > > > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and the > Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at #emacs in > IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full blown > language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" , "No > its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is history. > > > > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language > I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of > documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think > however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and > me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and > directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in > this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing > is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest > way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero > delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I > would be around as long as it follows them. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met > it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many > problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and > Smalltalk had them all. > > > > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I > see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) > Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's > how it is. > > > > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says > "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is > hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's > message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) > > > > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on > few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), > has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). > Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet > it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day > by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity > anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that > anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be > uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not > embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can > admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) > > > > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. > simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be > easily googled if need be. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > > > > > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: > > > > Simple ~= Easy. > > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy > (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). > > > > > > > > Intersting... > > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would > have thought the exact contrary... > > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? > > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler > than Smalltalk? > > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is > less than difference to Smalltalk? > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > > > > > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake > oil marketing" to me. > > > > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other > programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be > further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo > is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have > to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that > Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you > need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will > be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say > python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this > simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may > come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, > but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. > > > > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and > demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly > better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will > benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> > wrote: > > Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly > braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: > > > > exampleWithNumber: x > > | y | > > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. > > y := self size + super size. > > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) > > do: [ :each | > > Transcript show: (each class name); > > show: ' ']. > > ^x < y > > > > > > > > Uko > > > > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph > Johnson. > >> > >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard > >> > >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. > >> > >> Oscar > >> > >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf > >>> > >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. > It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers > and also as some king of souvenir. > >>> > >>> Uko > >>> > >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real > postcard. > >>>> > >>>> Stef > >>>> > >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: > >>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>> > >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was > there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really > interesting. > >>>>> > >>>>> Uko > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] vm over android

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Hi Kilon, 2014-06-19 16:17 GMT-03:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > And not to sound out of topic VM on Android is the single most important > thing for the future of Pharo. Mobile market wont become smaller it will > become much larger. Because smartphones are really lately that have turned > into a full blow computers and people slowly realize it. I disagree here. As an example, Android is switching its JIT runtime for an AOT one, because with JIT the performance (mostly related with UI perception) is slower than its iOS counterpart even when running on better hardware. Most of the popular apps use native multithreading intensively to maximize responsiveness. Pharo (as an organization) can't compete with that level of optimization, it doesn't have the budget for it. > How long before > most of those people realize that they dont need their desktop ? Software > migrates/ported constantly. Most people already realized that. But, IMO, the trend is not to move to mobile devices, but to cloud as a platform, or more exactly as a concept of always available and ubiquitous. Mobile is an enabler of ubiquity, it's not the end platform, and the cambric explosion of devices is a proof of that (phones, tablets, tvs, wearables, cars, who knows what...). Checkout a few "cloud based IDEs" to see what you can do today with those (eg: https://c9.io/ , https://codenvy.com/) Amber's Helios IDE is something that could enable that, backed by Pharo. > I definetly would love to have Pharo on my Nexus 4 one day and run smoothly. > I know its a lot of work, I don't expect it to happen any time soon, but > when the time will come my mobile phone will be "Pharo Powered" ;) Do you really want to have Pharo (for development) in a 5" screen? Or even in a 10" tablet? Have you tried using it? I did, and played around for a while. It was impressive that it ran bit identically. But that's all. Today's Pharo UI isn't close to be "mobile ready", in terms of UI design, architecture and by consequence performance. I don't find this a problem at all... unless you want to target mobile platforms. I mean... no one complains node.js doesn't have a good UI, and if there are some, it isn't their main strength. I'm not aware of a trend to have IntelliJ/Eclipse and/or XCode running on mobile devices, even when there is less "technology impedance" between their programming language and the supporting platform. Having all that said, I see use for Pharo in the mobile, in internet of things as mentioned earlier, for intensive custom UI apps and for games, where there is no expectation of "a native UI". Another handy usage would be to use it's "self containment" as an advantage to have a portable server stack or similar (assuming there is no dependency to local databases, etc.). And that's why when somebody says they're working on a VM for a mobile platform I ask "what for?", because I'd love to be proved wrong and learn about an unseen use case that could give us, Pharoers and Smalltalkers in general, an advantage. Regards,

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not really simple. > > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience. Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo / Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts associated with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I don't care about languages that theoretically are great. > > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. But I don't stop learning . > > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more difficult to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on Smalltalk seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference documentation and I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading code is very very very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read code, additionally I don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no comments. Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >> Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a pretty low level - that is really amazing. Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a key skill. Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or written in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything documented. And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. But we are moving forward in the right direction. > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless he does not real understand what he learned. > > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and the Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at #emacs in IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full blown language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" , "No its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is history. > > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I would be around as long as it follows them. > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and Smalltalk had them all. > > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's how it is. > > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) > > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) > > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be easily googled if need be. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > > > > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: > > Simple ~= Easy. > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). > > > > Intersting... > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would have thought the exact contrary... > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler than Smalltalk? > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is less than difference to Smalltalk? > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake oil marketing" to me. > > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. > > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: > > exampleWithNumber: x > | y | > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. > y := self size + super size. > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) > do: [ :each | > Transcript show: (each class name); > show: ' ']. > ^x < y > > > > Uko > > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph Johnson. >> >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >> >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >> >> Oscar >> >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >>> >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers and also as some king of souvenir. >>> >>> Uko >>> >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real postcard. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Uko >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > >

June 19, 2014