May 2015 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Eliot Miranda

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 May 2015 at 19:39, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 8 May 2015 at 19:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 08/05/2015 16:16, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> if one uses a at doit transcript then no special action is >>>>>> required to get output to appear beyond sending flush to Transcript right? >>>>>> So any solution that requires special action to get the moronic transcript >>>>>> to work us broken. We should fix the transcript, not expect every >>>>>> application to work around a bug. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eliot (phone) >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes using World dooneCycle is bad, but forking another process not >>>>> bad IMHO: >>>>> >>>>> There is probably a solution to make the Transcript less moronic and >>>>> refresh the world >>>>> (it seems very different from Squeak transcript) but it would be an >>>>> uncomplete specific-to-Transcript solution. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why? Why wouldn't it e a general solution that was available to any >>>> morph that wanted to update its contents immediately? >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>>>> to move the window (it was >>>>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>>>> >>>>> If we do >>>>> [ | m | >>>>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>>>> m position: 0@0. >>>>> m openInWorld . >>>>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>>>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>>>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>>>> ] value >>>>> we see nothing. >>>>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of >>>>> the way Morphic world runs >>>>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound >>>>> nice to me too. >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>>>> process ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >>>> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >>>> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >>>> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >>>> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >>>> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >>>> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >>>> >>>> >>> True.. but this is only highlights how deeply broken the overall system >>> around UI are. >>> Why would MC postscripts need to run in UI thread? Aren't they should be >>> completely independent of having UI process at all (unless we're talking >>> about packages that actually providing these facilities) ? >>> I know that running doits in separate process is 'bad idea' (tm). Only >>> because of original bad idea in the past to not care about clearly separate >>> things and rely on de-facto non-linear and intricate dependencies in >>> system, that established over the years, because of lack of design and >>> planning. >>> >>> I know it may sound like an arrogant moron blabbery, but it doesn't >>> means i wrong :) >>> >> >> I still don't hear any rationale for the transcript not updating itself >> when it does flush/endEntry:. I still don't hear any rationale for the >> morphic transcript behaving differently to a stdout transcript. In that >> case, it only makes sense to fix the transcript, right? >> >> > Transcript is not an UI element, it is a stream. Period. > Ah, a write-only invisible transcript. Riiiight. Really useful to log output to somewhere no one can see it. Riiight. No, Igor, the Transcript is a UI element and a stream. It is a place to log textual output where the programmer can see it. It is Smalltalk's standard output console. If one ants a stream which will record output one can use a file. If one wants to see it in real time, one uses a transcript. > From that perspective, is it *not* broken in Pharo and works well. > You can write to transcript and everything you written to it is not lost > and recorded.. > to be later piped wherever used wants it to. > I repeat again, Transcript is *not* an UI element simply because it works > even if there's no any transcript window open. > From that perspective the 'flush' command issued cannot be interpreted as > a 'do whatever it takes and deliver immediately my contents to the screen', > because obviously there may be no any screen nor window.. > So, the 'flush' behavior is more like a soft hint, that can be completely > ignored (making users mad :) ) rather than strict command. > > So, forcing updates to the screen (even if you not really neeed it), is a > separate > issue, and as to me, has little to do with transcript, because it is more > general problem of being able to update screen at the moment you want, > not at the moment, when a system designed to do that. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> and have a friendly way to control those processes, a bit similar to >>>>> what happens when you launch your program in other IDEs like eclipse, >>>>> visual studio, it starts another process ? >>>>> >>>>> And to start, with a simple right-click menu option : 'Do it async' >>>>> to experiment >>>>> (from a recent discussion, may be few problems with the inspector, >>>>> but that's another point) >>>>> >>>>> I don't know how it works under other smalltalks, does it blocks under >>>>> VisualWorks when you execute some do-it ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Alain >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> best, >>>> Eliot >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Igor Stasenko. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> best, >> Eliot >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > -- best, Eliot

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Magritte = Auto-GT Presentation

by Sean P. DeNigris

Sean P. DeNigris wrote > > Tudor Girba-2 wrote >> You get a GLMMagrittePresentation and if you want to use it in the >> inspector, you have to define your own extension that uses it. > I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding... I only know how to hook into the > inspector via > <gtInspectorPresentationOrder: aNumber> > . How does that relate to GLMMagrittePresentation? How specifically do I > have a Magritte presentation appear by default in GT for an object? Is > there an example or doc somewhere? Bump. Is there example code anywhere? ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Magritte-Auto-GT-Presentation-tp4817448p4825360.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Igor Stasenko

On 8 May 2015 at 19:39, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 8 May 2015 at 19:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Le 08/05/2015 16:16, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> if one uses a at doit transcript then no special action is >>>>> required to get output to appear beyond sending flush to Transcript right? >>>>> So any solution that requires special action to get the moronic transcript >>>>> to work us broken. We should fix the transcript, not expect every >>>>> application to work around a bug. >>>>> >>>>> Eliot (phone) >>>>> >>>>> Yes using World dooneCycle is bad, but forking another process not >>>> bad IMHO: >>>> >>>> There is probably a solution to make the Transcript less moronic and >>>> refresh the world >>>> (it seems very different from Squeak transcript) but it would be an >>>> uncomplete specific-to-Transcript solution. >>>> >>> >>> Why? Why wouldn't it e a general solution that was available to any >>> morph that wanted to update its contents immediately? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>>> to move the window (it was >>>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>>> >>>> If we do >>>> [ | m | >>>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>>> m position: 0@0. >>>> m openInWorld . >>>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>>> ] value >>>> we see nothing. >>>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >>>> way Morphic world runs >>>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound >>>> nice to me too. >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>>> process ? >>>> >>> >>> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >>> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >>> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >>> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >>> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >>> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >>> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >>> >>> >> True.. but this is only highlights how deeply broken the overall system >> around UI are. >> Why would MC postscripts need to run in UI thread? Aren't they should be >> completely independent of having UI process at all (unless we're talking >> about packages that actually providing these facilities) ? >> I know that running doits in separate process is 'bad idea' (tm). Only >> because of original bad idea in the past to not care about clearly separate >> things and rely on de-facto non-linear and intricate dependencies in >> system, that established over the years, because of lack of design and >> planning. >> >> I know it may sound like an arrogant moron blabbery, but it doesn't means >> i wrong :) >> > > I still don't hear any rationale for the transcript not updating itself > when it does flush/endEntry:. I still don't hear any rationale for the > morphic transcript behaving differently to a stdout transcript. In that > case, it only makes sense to fix the transcript, right? > > Transcript is not an UI element, it is a stream. Period. >From that perspective, is it *not* broken in Pharo and works well. You can write to transcript and everything you written to it is not lost and recorded.. to be later piped wherever used wants it to. I repeat again, Transcript is *not* an UI element simply because it works even if there's no any transcript window open. >From that perspective the 'flush' command issued cannot be interpreted as a 'do whatever it takes and deliver immediately my contents to the screen', because obviously there may be no any screen nor window.. So, the 'flush' behavior is more like a soft hint, that can be completely ignored (making users mad :) ) rather than strict command. So, forcing updates to the screen (even if you not really neeed it), is a separate issue, and as to me, has little to do with transcript, because it is more general problem of being able to update screen at the moment you want, not at the moment, when a system designed to do that. > >> >>> >>>> and have a friendly way to control those processes, a bit similar to >>>> what happens when you launch your program in other IDEs like eclipse, >>>> visual studio, it starts another process ? >>>> >>>> And to start, with a simple right-click menu option : 'Do it async' to >>>> experiment >>>> (from a recent discussion, may be few problems with the inspector, >>>> but that's another point) >>>> >>>> I don't know how it works under other smalltalks, does it blocks under >>>> VisualWorks when you execute some do-it ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Alain >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> best, >>> Eliot >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > > > -- > best, > Eliot > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] GanttChartMorph openOn: aCollectionOfActivities ?

by Ben Coman

oh oh!!! A good gantt chat would be fabulous. Could elements be made draggable in a constrained way? That could encourage me to start a project scheduling application. cheers -ben On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Hi Hannes, > > We are currently working on a gantt chart diagram. > > Beginning of next week (or during the week end) we will release it. > > Cheers, > Alexandre > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > > On May 7, 2015, at 4:25 PM, H. Hirzel <hannes.hirzel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello > > Has somebody done a GANTT chart? > > GanttChartMorph openOn: aCollectionOfActivities > > ? > > Activities have > - id > - description > - start date > - end date > ? > > Regards > > Hannes > > >

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Eliot Miranda

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 May 2015 at 19:31, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote >>>> >>>> >>>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>>> to move the window (it was >>>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>>> >>>> If we do >>>> [ | m | >>>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>>> m position: 0@0. >>>> m openInWorld . >>>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>>> ] value >>>> we see nothing. >>>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >>>> way Morphic world runs >>>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound >>>> nice to me too. >>>> >>>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>>> process ? >>>> >>> >>> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >>> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >>> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >>> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >>> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >>> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >>> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >>> >>> >> ahh yes. Maybe we're not ready to be that adventurous yet. >> cheers -ben >> >> > Unlike other software environments, smalltalk(s) allow you to change > virtually anything in the system. And i found this to be really great > thing.. and was happy until the moment i realized that the real thing, that > prevents changes is not the software but people who opposing the changes :) > Nonsense. Changes are not the same as breakages. I've just changed the entire VM and object representation. I implemented a JIT and then followed up with a faster one, and ClÃ©ment and I are following up with an even faster one. But I didn't break things; I made them better. SOmeone who reimplements the transcript so that - it doesn't have all the stream messages any more, and hence isn't a stream as it was always, - it doesn't update has not made changes; they have broken things. And in a shared space we rightly get to complain when that happens. -- best, Eliot

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Windows version of 0-config scripts?

by Ben Coman

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > remind me please, is it broken, or never worked? > > trying: > > wget -O- get.pharo.org/30+vm |bash > > Downloading the latest 30 Image: > http://files.pharo.org/get-files/30/pharo.zip > bash: line 51: mktemp: command not found > > Works for me on OSX. cheers -ben

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Eliot Miranda

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 May 2015 at 19:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Le 08/05/2015 16:16, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> if one uses a at doit transcript then no special action is >>>> required to get output to appear beyond sending flush to Transcript right? >>>> So any solution that requires special action to get the moronic transcript >>>> to work us broken. We should fix the transcript, not expect every >>>> application to work around a bug. >>>> >>>> Eliot (phone) >>>> >>>> Yes using World dooneCycle is bad, but forking another process not >>> bad IMHO: >>> >>> There is probably a solution to make the Transcript less moronic and >>> refresh the world >>> (it seems very different from Squeak transcript) but it would be an >>> uncomplete specific-to-Transcript solution. >>> >> >> Why? Why wouldn't it e a general solution that was available to any >> morph that wanted to update its contents immediately? >> >> >>> >>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>> to move the window (it was >>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>> >>> If we do >>> [ | m | >>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>> m position: 0@0. >>> m openInWorld . >>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>> ] value >>> we see nothing. >>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >>> way Morphic world runs >>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound nice >>> to me too. >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>> process ? >>> >> >> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >> >> > True.. but this is only highlights how deeply broken the overall system > around UI are. > Why would MC postscripts need to run in UI thread? Aren't they should be > completely independent of having UI process at all (unless we're talking > about packages that actually providing these facilities) ? > I know that running doits in separate process is 'bad idea' (tm). Only > because of original bad idea in the past to not care about clearly separate > things and rely on de-facto non-linear and intricate dependencies in > system, that established over the years, because of lack of design and > planning. > > I know it may sound like an arrogant moron blabbery, but it doesn't means > i wrong :) > I still don't hear any rationale for the transcript not updating itself when it does flush/endEntry:. I still don't hear any rationale for the morphic transcript behaving differently to a stdout transcript. In that case, it only makes sense to fix the transcript, right? > >> >>> and have a friendly way to control those processes, a bit similar to >>> what happens when you launch your program in other IDEs like eclipse, >>> visual studio, it starts another process ? >>> >>> And to start, with a simple right-click menu option : 'Do it async' to >>> experiment >>> (from a recent discussion, may be few problems with the inspector, >>> but that's another point) >>> >>> I don't know how it works under other smalltalks, does it blocks under >>> VisualWorks when you execute some do-it ? >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Alain >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> best, >> Eliot >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > -- best, Eliot

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Igor Stasenko

On 8 May 2015 at 19:31, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> >> wrote >>> >>> >>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>> to move the window (it was >>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>> >>> If we do >>> [ | m | >>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>> m position: 0@0. >>> m openInWorld . >>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>> ] value >>> we see nothing. >>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >>> way Morphic world runs >>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound nice >>> to me too. >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>> process ? >>> >> >> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >> >> > ahh yes. Maybe we're not ready to be that adventurous yet. > cheers -ben > > Unlike other software environments, smalltalk(s) allow you to change virtually anything in the system. And i found this to be really great thing.. and was happy until the moment i realized that the real thing, that prevents changes is not the software but people who opposing the changes :) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Igor Stasenko

On 8 May 2015 at 19:22, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Le 08/05/2015 16:16, Eliot Miranda a Ã©crit : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> if one uses a at doit transcript then no special action is required >>> to get output to appear beyond sending flush to Transcript right? So any >>> solution that requires special action to get the moronic transcript to work >>> us broken. We should fix the transcript, not expect every application to >>> work around a bug. >>> >>> Eliot (phone) >>> >>> Yes using World dooneCycle is bad, but forking another process not bad >> IMHO: >> >> There is probably a solution to make the Transcript less moronic and >> refresh the world >> (it seems very different from Squeak transcript) but it would be an >> uncomplete specific-to-Transcript solution. >> > > Why? Why wouldn't it e a general solution that was available to any morph > that wanted to update its contents immediately? > > >> >> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying to >> move the window (it was >> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >> >> If we do >> [ | m | >> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >> m position: 0@0. >> m openInWorld . >> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >> ] value >> we see nothing. >> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >> way Morphic world runs >> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound nice >> to me too. >> >> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >> process ? >> > > I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail > wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their > own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for > example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing > simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating > itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing > huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. > > True.. but this is only highlights how deeply broken the overall system around UI are. Why would MC postscripts need to run in UI thread? Aren't they should be completely independent of having UI process at all (unless we're talking about packages that actually providing these facilities) ? I know that running doits in separate process is 'bad idea' (tm). Only because of original bad idea in the past to not care about clearly separate things and rely on de-facto non-linear and intricate dependencies in system, that established over the years, because of lack of design and planning. I know it may sound like an arrogant moron blabbery, but it doesn't means i wrong :) > >> and have a friendly way to control those processes, a bit similar to what >> happens when you launch your program in other IDEs like eclipse, visual >> studio, it starts another process ? >> >> And to start, with a simple right-click menu option : 'Do it async' to >> experiment >> (from a recent discussion, may be few problems with the inspector, >> but that's another point) >> >> I don't know how it works under other smalltalks, does it blocks under >> VisualWorks when you execute some do-it ? >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Alain >> >> >> > > > -- > best, > Eliot > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

May 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Transcript needs your love

by Ben Coman

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat(a)gmail.com> > wrote >> >> >> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying to >> move the window (it was >> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >> >> If we do >> [ | m | >> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >> m position: 0@0. >> m openInWorld . >> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >> ] value >> we see nothing. >> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >> way Morphic world runs >> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound nice >> to me too. >> >> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >> process ? >> > > I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail > wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their > own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for > example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing > simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating > itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing > huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. > > ahh yes. Maybe we're not ready to be that adventurous yet. cheers -ben

May 8, 2015