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

Re: [Pharo-dev] Release TaskIT Version 1

by Serge Stinckwich

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:21 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > Thank you guys > Guille finishing a first draft of the pillar chapter would be great. Like > that you add it to your publication list :) Maybe, chapters should have explicit authors. This is not the case for all chapters. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Serge Stinckwich

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> >>> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >>> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >>> >>> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >>> >>> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >>> >>> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >>> a licence when we started to use it). >> >> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double >> licencing of spec. >> > > I do not think that you can change a license without getting the OK of all authors, I guess > it is a mistake in the config of the project. This is not a mistake, look here: https://github.com/spec-framework/spec/commit/07ea83ca50523b4a912e363ff2f39… -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Marcus Denker

On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:18, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution >> is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. >> >> We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. >> >> New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). >> >> e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have >> a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > I do not think that you can change a license without getting the OK of all authors, I guess it is a mistake in the config of the project. Marcus

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Luc Fabresse

Hi all, Since the code of Spec has been integrated in Pharo when it was MIT, I think that this is not a problem. To me, the new licence only apply to the new code in the repository of Spec since the licence changed. So now, no spec code should be loaded in the Pharo base image. Cheers, Luc 2014-08-26 10:18 GMT+02:00 Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com>: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > > > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> > wrote: > >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, > Glamour, > >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could > arouse > >>> interest from doubtful people. > >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the > smalltalk > >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. > >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... > >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? > hahaha > >>> ...) > >>> :( > >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > >>> > >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the > mailing > >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc > ? > >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? > Will > >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > >> > >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > >> Smalltalk) > >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > >> problem for Pharo. > >> > > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo > main distribution > > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of > the main distribution). > > > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL > (it did not have > > a licence when we started to use it). > > I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. > > Regards, > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) > Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk > http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/ > >

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Torsten Bergmann

> I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double > licencing of spec. Is that new? Why is it double licensed? Thanks T.

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Serge Stinckwich

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >>> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >>> interest from doubtful people. >>> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >>> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >>> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >>> And sometimes they remember that too ... >>> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >>> ...) >>> :( >>> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >>> >>> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >>> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >>> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >>> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >>> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >>> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >>> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >>> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >> >> Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT >> when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use >> Smalltalk) >> and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential >> problem for Pharo. >> > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution > is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. > > We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. > > New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). > > e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have > a licence when we started to use it). I completely agree with you. This why I was worried with this double licencing of spec. Regards, -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Marcus Denker

On 26 Aug 2014, at 10:03, Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: >> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, >> Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse >> interest from doubtful people. >> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk >> system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on >> dotNet, Delphi or C++. >> And sometimes they remember that too ... >> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >> ...) >> :( >> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >> >> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing >> list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it >> cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will >> it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? > > Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT > when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use > Smalltalk) > and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential > problem for Pharo. > GPL is not compatible with Pharo. All code that is part of the Pharo main distribution is either historical (Apple Licence) or MIT. We even let people sign a document that makes this clear. New code has to be MIT, we do not accept any other license (as part of the main distribution). e.g. Zinc was done because the HTTP server we were using was made GPL (it did not have a licence when we started to use it). Marcus

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by Serge Stinckwich

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: > +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, Glamour, > Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could arouse > interest from doubtful people. > I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the smalltalk > system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people sticking on > dotNet, Delphi or C++. > And sometimes they remember that too ... > (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha > ...) > :( > Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) > > Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't > understand the relationship with GTInspector ? > I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the mailing > list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do it > cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency > injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? > I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? Will > it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? Yes, apparently spec is distributed now under a dual licence : MIT when used as an external library (not sure what it means when you use Smalltalk) and GPL when integrated in an IDE ... I think that this is a potential problem for Pharo. https://github.com/spec-framework/spec#license -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Moose-dev] [ANN] Voronyj Diagram

by Natalia Tymchuk

Hello. Yes, it is quite slow. I used Delaunay triangulation to build the diagram, Iâm not sure that it has the smallest complexity, but it is the simples one for me. > I've seen > the code copies collections a lot, that might be itâ¦ It is the reason, however I wanted not only draw the diagram as a lot of segments, but to build the polygons and for that I need all that collections. Maybe I will change the algorithm, that builds the diagrams. Thanks for your attention and comments) Best regards, Natalia On Aug 26, 2014, at 3:38 AM, Damien Pollet <damien.pollet(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Natalia, > > I've been playing with it today, and look at the pretty pixels it makes :D > The points are generated by the poisson disc sampling algorithm > described at http://bost.ocks.org/mike/algorithms/ > > However, see the result of the doit, in redâ¦ the time grows really > quick with the number of nodes, which makes it impractical with large > point sets (the 2 smaller sets are instant, the 3rd one quickly pops > the progress bar, and the 4th takes a couple minutes). Wikipedia says > the complexity should be around N log N, so that's strange ; I've seen > the code copies collections a lot, that might be itâ¦ but it's too late > for coding now :| > > On 25 July 2014 19:12, Natalia Tymchuk <natalia.tymchuk(a)unikernel.net> wrote: >> Thank you. >> Yes, I will. >> >> Natalia >> >> On Jul 25, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> >> wrote: >> >> Impressive!!!! >> >> Natalia, will you be at esug? >> >> Alexandre >> -- >> _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: >> Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu >> ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. >> >> >> >> On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Natalia Tymchuk <natalia.tymchuk(a)unikernel.net> >> wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> I implemented Voronyj diagrams for Roassal. You can read about it here: >> http://natalia.tymchuk.me/RTVoronyjDiagram/ . >> I will be on vacation from Monday till Thursday, but it will be really cool >> if you can write me your opinion about this project and all your remarks. >> >> Best regards, >> Natalia >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> >> >> > > > > -- > Damien Pollet > type less, do more [ | ] http://people.untyped.org/damien.pollet > <Poisson + Voronyj.png>_______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

Aug. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap on tools?

by phil＠highoctane.be

> > I strongly disagree on Morphic, personally I love using it. It can be > cleaner but still beats any other GUI I have used in terms of ease of use > without sacrificing power. Spec on the other hand looks ugly to me , weird > and very difficult to understand. But maybe its just my opinion and how my > brain is wired. Afterall Spec has been very popular with Pharo devs so > definitely is something I keep a close eye on . I really hope Morphic does > not get removed, at least continue to be distributed as third party > library.Though thats is unlikely with all the hard work of cleaning it up. > Morphic and Spec address different concerns. Building a UI with Morphic alone is what one would use to do something very custom (like a game for example). Now, creating a larger UI that way is definitely going to be super pain in the assets. That's where Spec does fit. Of course at this point in time, the underlying Morphic widgets are quite complicated and sometimes behave in strange ways (try right clicks on the dev tools in unexpected areas...). It takes a while to get used to but it works well. http://spec.st/docs/home/ I also wouldn't want Morphic to be removed, but definitely would like to see it cleaned up in some areas. What I am not sure about is how much of an external library we will depend on. One key thing in Morphic is that one can learn a lot by looking inside (and solve problems), something which will maybe not be there with a new version. Phil > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Alain Rastoul <alr.dev(a)free.fr> wrote: > >> +1 for the GTInspector, and the Moose tools/paradigm too (Roassal, >> Glamour, Moose and others), all that stuff is great step forward and could >> arouse interest from doubtful people. >> I remember myself failing to show some collegues at work how the >> smalltalk system could be a cool tool to play with, even for people >> sticking on dotNet, Delphi or C++. >> And sometimes they remember that too ... >> (Smalltalk? Squeak? -at that time- that blinking and poping toy ? hahaha >> ...) >> :( >> Still working on that like a flea (?- a morpion) >> >> Morphic removed is good news - clumsy, buggy and weird - but I don't >> understand the relationship with GTInspector ? >> I googled about that and just found a post of you about Bloc in the >> mailing list, it sounds like a good idea, and I'm sure you'll manage to do >> it cleanly, but I'm also very curious about that: big bang or dependency >> injection and small steps? other patterns, techniques ? a link on Bloc ? >> I'm also curious about Spec and it's status after it's change to GPL ? >> Will it be supported in the future ? What are the alternatives ? >> >> I understand that you are very busy, so no problem if there is no link on >> existing material, I should survive, >> just wait a little :) >> >> TIA >> >> >> Regards >> >> Alain >> >> Le 24/08/2014 08:03, stepharo a Ã©crit : >> >> >>> On 24/8/14 05:39, Alexandre Bergel wrote: >>> >>>> I see GTInspector as a big splash. I guess that if there would be a >>>> Tool Roadmap, it would be focused on GTInspector. >>>> >>> >>> Not necessarily. >>> No time to explain sorry but else I would not improve morphic because >>> bloc is coming and parallel actions are important. >>> >>> Stef >>> >> >> >> >> >> >

Aug. 26, 2014