December 2016 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-12-08 12:14 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > I think > > Message does not exist > It is not correct because in fact message exits and it is here in argument of #doesNotUnderstood: and it is shown in degugger.

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by phil＠highoctane.be

This is because you have been shaped by those other languages. Message is not Operation which is not Method. There are lots of mechnisms that are based on hooking in the #DNU mechanism. That's a key feature of Pharo, so, trying to hide that fact is not helping. #DNU is "cannot make sense of what you are asking me to do, Dave". <Subject> <Verb> Phil Phil Phil On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > First of all you will never see the word message mentioned in those > languages you mentioned > Second the word , understood, says nothing about the nature of the problem > to a beginner > > Is it that the method does not exist ? > Or is it that method exists but message does not ? > Or is it that the method does something it should not ? > Or is the VM that has problem executing the method ? > > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 11:27, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Message(method) does not exist" happens in C/Java/etc when we *call* a >> method. >> "Message not understood by an object" happens in Smalltalk/Ruby when we >> *send* a message. >> >> I like this conceptual distinguishment between calling a method and >> sending a message. >> >> Cheers, >> Alex >> >

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] :: Separator in class names

by phil＠highoctane.be

I like that :: idea for structuring the global space. What I would refrain from is to into the Java style packages/classloaders/Jigsaw/OSGi thing. So, that is not what you are after, so that is good. Having a smaller number of well working libraries that we refine feels superior to a myriad of ad hoc things put together. I'd rather have more advanced access mechanisms (and let go of any compatibility with other Smalltalks) in order to have a poweful environment to develop in. We do have a system, so, the focus should be on mechanisms and on the "Pharo way to solve problems" than on compatibility. For example, I'd better have a way to write code using other syntaxes and getting compiled into Pharo code and then in bytecode in order to express higher order things. Compatibility is only going to glue us to the blue plane. Phil On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Dale wrote: > >Because of the obvious portability problems this would introduce, I > >would think that an attempt should be made to come up with a common > >namespace solution ... > > I'm not sure about the current namespace solutions existing today in > vendor driven Smalltalks. You and me were participants in the first > CampSmalltalk in San Diego in 2000 with many others trying to get the > Smalltalk's closer which was already hard at that time > because of the many dialects and differences (VW, VAST, Gemstone, Squeak, > ST/MT, Dolphin, ...) > > Some of this work influenced todays Smalltalk world with frameworks and > tools. Today Smalltalks shares not only basic core classes > but also a common unit framework and similar test runners, have code > exchange and formats, even a framework like Seaside could > somehow be managed "portable". > > But there was not much success in REALLY aligning all the proprietary > solutions regarding class libraries, common behavior of methods, > tools, UI or even frameworks. You cant file out, file in and just run. > > Because we have different pragma solutions, different foreign function > interfaces, different way of building tools ... even > differences on compiler and meta level. So "portability problems" are > already a reality for many other reasons. > > Dont get me wrong. I'm all ears if you see a way to build a "common" or > "portable" route for unified namespace solution, but to make > this a reality: > > - commercial vendors would have to see a need for (another) portable > solution > - would need to invest into this topic with time and resources > - would have to jump onto the "open" and MIT licensed bandwagon to share > with open source Smalltalks like Squeak and Pharo > - would have to adopt their own solutions to a new portable one > - you would need to get all the different interests under one umbrella > > Which I doubt such a thing will happen because vendors already have own > proprietary existing namespace solutions. Even when this would > be possible they would have to invest in explaining this to their > customers who also would need to migrate from existing vendor > namespace solutions. > > This thread is not about Namespaces, just about an optional separator in > global names. So independent from the reasons to start this thread > I doubt we will ever find a path to a unified namespace solution. You can > call me a pessimist in this regard, even in having a short-term > common namespace solution for Pharo, Squeak and Cuis. > > >something that a small community cannot really afford to do > > Community is not big ... but growing. At least from what I see in open > source Smalltalks like Squeak, Pharo, Cuis, ... with new > community members, ideas, frameworks, books, unifying VM, ... > > We would continue to be a small community if our world would have stopped > and kept the things the way they were defined initially in ST. > I would not like to imagine the size of the overall ST community without > the fresh air of these open source Smalltalks. > > Maybe I'm mistaken but so far Pharo is already the one who EXPLORES new > routes with Traits, Slots, MetaLinks, OpalCompiler, ... > often these are already "non-portable". So while you can use them if you > are in need of them you should stay away from them > if you have portability to other Smalltalks in mind. Right? > > This does not solve the portability issue but provides freedem: because > you can share with other Smalltalks if necessary - but also > allows you to follow new paths, use slots and other. > > But back to the topic: > ====================== > Please do not misunderstood my orginal post: I DONT want to have or > discuss a new and perfect namespace solution now as an outcome > here. Usually when similar threads were discussed we only agreed that this > never gets reality. ;) > > I JUST want to change the single method #isValidGlobalName to be MORE > FLEXIBLE and to allow for an EXPLICIT and OPTIONAL > SEPARATOR IN GLOBAL NAMES. Nothing less but also nothing more. So this is > about an optional separator in global names, not > about a full namespace solution. > > By allowing such a separator anyone (including me) who feels the need to > experiment or try out new paths can then > play with it: > > - maybe just for readability to write prefixed classes like this > "KillerApp::Window" > - maybe just to avoid conflicts as with a better separated prefix > ("MyKillApp::Person" vs. "YouKillerApp::Person") > - maybe to experiment with having two versions of a class inside of the > image "OldVersion::MyClass" and "NewVersion::MyClass" > - maybe because you want to import/map namespace from other languages > like Java/.NET/C++/... to it > (like mapping Java to Pharo as org::apache::commons::lang::StringUtils > and so on) to experiment with Pharo as a > multilanguage engine or experiment in a better JNIPort > - maybe because you want to map different platform facilities or > libraries ("Common::Window", "Windows::Window", > "OSX::Window", "GTK::Window", ...) > - maybe to provide useful shadow classes that are not visible by default > in regular tools ("Shadows::Object", "Shadows::Boolean", ...) > - maybe to be able to import and separate classes from different > Smalltalk systems ("VW::Object", "VAST::Object", ...) > - and yes: maybe also to do initial experiments towards a future portable > or non-portable namespace solution > - ... > - [ADD YOUR OWN IDEAS HERE] > > > So anything I want is a single and small step forward: the possibility in > Pharo 6 for global names to allow a > COMPLETELY OPTIONAL separator without having to "dirty patch" the method > #isValidGlobalName in the base image. > > So if one wants to write regular code or even portable code and code that > is traditional, working with all tools > he could and should stay away from this OPTIONAL separator possibility. > Nothing changes on the usual Pharo and Smalltalk side, > you can code and share as before. > > But if one feels the need to use such a possibility for own custom stuff > or experiments it is there and one can use it. > I feel a very strong need on my side for such experiments because I would > like to explore new grounds with it. I can > patch/overwrite the method in my custom images - but this is not so clean > and nice. Pharo should give this freedom out > of the box and I hope that you agree with me. > > Maybe others have similar ideas and want to experiment as well. Thats why > I opened this thread - if the community > supports the idea and shares similar visions I will open a bug, provide a > slice and we include it. In my opinion it > opens new opportunities. > > If community disagrees and it will not become part of the base image out > of the box (or only as part of a full namespace solution) > I will continue patching my custom images. I'm fine with that as well - > but then at least I tried to get this in. > > Thanks > T. > > > > > > >

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by Aliaksei Syrel

The fact that method does not exist does not necessarily mean that object does not understand a message ;) First of all you will never see the word message mentioned in those > languages you mentioned Indeed in C/Java/etc there is no such word message, that is why you can find word "method" in parentheses to the right from word "message" (actually second word in first sentence). In case of two other mentioned languages Smalltalk/Ruby word "message" is common. Do you agree that it is the case in Smalltalk? ;) For the Ruby I would like to refer to official documentation, especially method_missing hook (analogue of doesNotUnderstand: in Pharo). https://ruby-doc.org/core-2.1.0/BasicObject.html#method-i-method_missing (first sentence) Invoked by Ruby when *obj* is sent* a message it cannot handle*. Cheers, Alex On 8 December 2016 at 12:34, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > First of all you will never see the word message mentioned in those > languages you mentioned > Second the word , understood, says nothing about the nature of the problem > to a beginner > > Is it that the method does not exist ? > Or is it that method exists but message does not ? > Or is it that the method does something it should not ? > Or is the VM that has problem executing the method ? > > > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 11:27, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> "Message(method) does not exist" happens in C/Java/etc when we *call* a >> method. >> "Message not understood by an object" happens in Smalltalk/Ruby when we >> *send* a message. >> >> I like this conceptual distinguishment between calling a method and >> sending a message. >> >> Cheers, >> Alex >> >

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by Dimitris Chloupis

First of all you will never see the word message mentioned in those languages you mentioned Second the word , understood, says nothing about the nature of the problem to a beginner Is it that the method does not exist ? Or is it that method exists but message does not ? Or is it that the method does something it should not ? Or is the VM that has problem executing the method ? On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 11:27, Aliaksei Syrel <alex.syrel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "Message(method) does not exist" happens in C/Java/etc when we *call* a > method. > "Message not understood by an object" happens in Smalltalk/Ruby when we > *send* a message. > > I like this conceptual distinguishment between calling a method and > sending a message. > > Cheers, > Alex >

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] :: Separator in class names

by Torsten Bergmann

Dale wrote: >Because of the obvious portability problems this would introduce, I >would think that an attempt should be made to come up with a common >namespace solution ... I'm not sure about the current namespace solutions existing today in vendor driven Smalltalks. You and me were participants in the first CampSmalltalk in San Diego in 2000 with many others trying to get the Smalltalk's closer which was already hard at that time because of the many dialects and differences (VW, VAST, Gemstone, Squeak, ST/MT, Dolphin, ...) Some of this work influenced todays Smalltalk world with frameworks and tools. Today Smalltalks shares not only basic core classes but also a common unit framework and similar test runners, have code exchange and formats, even a framework like Seaside could somehow be managed "portable". But there was not much success in REALLY aligning all the proprietary solutions regarding class libraries, common behavior of methods, tools, UI or even frameworks. You cant file out, file in and just run. Because we have different pragma solutions, different foreign function interfaces, different way of building tools ... even differences on compiler and meta level. So "portability problems" are already a reality for many other reasons. Dont get me wrong. I'm all ears if you see a way to build a "common" or "portable" route for unified namespace solution, but to make this a reality: - commercial vendors would have to see a need for (another) portable solution - would need to invest into this topic with time and resources - would have to jump onto the "open" and MIT licensed bandwagon to share with open source Smalltalks like Squeak and Pharo - would have to adopt their own solutions to a new portable one - you would need to get all the different interests under one umbrella Which I doubt such a thing will happen because vendors already have own proprietary existing namespace solutions. Even when this would be possible they would have to invest in explaining this to their customers who also would need to migrate from existing vendor namespace solutions. This thread is not about Namespaces, just about an optional separator in global names. So independent from the reasons to start this thread I doubt we will ever find a path to a unified namespace solution. You can call me a pessimist in this regard, even in having a short-term common namespace solution for Pharo, Squeak and Cuis. >something that a small community cannot really afford to do Community is not big ... but growing. At least from what I see in open source Smalltalks like Squeak, Pharo, Cuis, ... with new community members, ideas, frameworks, books, unifying VM, ... We would continue to be a small community if our world would have stopped and kept the things the way they were defined initially in ST. I would not like to imagine the size of the overall ST community without the fresh air of these open source Smalltalks. Maybe I'm mistaken but so far Pharo is already the one who EXPLORES new routes with Traits, Slots, MetaLinks, OpalCompiler, ... often these are already "non-portable". So while you can use them if you are in need of them you should stay away from them if you have portability to other Smalltalks in mind. Right? This does not solve the portability issue but provides freedem: because you can share with other Smalltalks if necessary - but also allows you to follow new paths, use slots and other. But back to the topic: ====================== Please do not misunderstood my orginal post: I DONT want to have or discuss a new and perfect namespace solution now as an outcome here. Usually when similar threads were discussed we only agreed that this never gets reality. ;) I JUST want to change the single method #isValidGlobalName to be MORE FLEXIBLE and to allow for an EXPLICIT and OPTIONAL SEPARATOR IN GLOBAL NAMES. Nothing less but also nothing more. So this is about an optional separator in global names, not about a full namespace solution. By allowing such a separator anyone (including me) who feels the need to experiment or try out new paths can then play with it: - maybe just for readability to write prefixed classes like this "KillerApp::Window" - maybe just to avoid conflicts as with a better separated prefix ("MyKillApp::Person" vs. "YouKillerApp::Person") - maybe to experiment with having two versions of a class inside of the image "OldVersion::MyClass" and "NewVersion::MyClass" - maybe because you want to import/map namespace from other languages like Java/.NET/C++/... to it (like mapping Java to Pharo as org::apache::commons::lang::StringUtils and so on) to experiment with Pharo as a multilanguage engine or experiment in a better JNIPort - maybe because you want to map different platform facilities or libraries ("Common::Window", "Windows::Window", "OSX::Window", "GTK::Window", ...) - maybe to provide useful shadow classes that are not visible by default in regular tools ("Shadows::Object", "Shadows::Boolean", ...) - maybe to be able to import and separate classes from different Smalltalk systems ("VW::Object", "VAST::Object", ...) - and yes: maybe also to do initial experiments towards a future portable or non-portable namespace solution - ... - [ADD YOUR OWN IDEAS HERE] So anything I want is a single and small step forward: the possibility in Pharo 6 for global names to allow a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL separator without having to "dirty patch" the method #isValidGlobalName in the base image. So if one wants to write regular code or even portable code and code that is traditional, working with all tools he could and should stay away from this OPTIONAL separator possibility. Nothing changes on the usual Pharo and Smalltalk side, you can code and share as before. But if one feels the need to use such a possibility for own custom stuff or experiments it is there and one can use it. I feel a very strong need on my side for such experiments because I would like to explore new grounds with it. I can patch/overwrite the method in my custom images - but this is not so clean and nice. Pharo should give this freedom out of the box and I hope that you agree with me. Maybe others have similar ideas and want to experiment as well. Thats why I opened this thread - if the community supports the idea and shares similar visions I will open a bug, provide a slice and we include it. In my opinion it opens new opportunities. If community disagrees and it will not become part of the base image out of the box (or only as part of a full namespace solution) I will continue patching my custom images. I'm fine with that as well - but then at least I tried to get this in. Thanks T.

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by Aliaksei Syrel

"Message(method) does not exist" happens in C/Java/etc when we *call* a method. "Message not understood by an object" happens in Smalltalk/Ruby when we *send* a message. I like this conceptual distinguishment between calling a method and sending a message. Cheers, Alex

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by Dimitris Chloupis

I think Message does not exist Makes more sense, I always found the use of the word understood kinda weird On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 at 10:38, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > MyClass did not understand #message > > Phil > > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 2016-12-08 10:59 GMT+01:00 phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>: > > What if the method is on class side? > > > Good question. It will be > > an instance of MyClass class did not understand #message > > which of course not so good. What you suggest? > > >

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by phil＠highoctane.be

MyClass did not understand #message Phil On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 2016-12-08 10:59 GMT+01:00 phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>: > >> What if the method is on class side? > > > Good question. It will be > > an instance of MyClass class did not understand #message > > which of course not so good. What you suggest? >

Dec. 8, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Drastically improving the messageNotUnderstood title

by Denis Kudriashov

2016-12-08 10:59 GMT+01:00 phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be>: > What if the method is on class side? Good question. It will be an instance of MyClass class did not understand #message which of course not so good. What you suggest?

Dec. 8, 2016