- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

[Pharo-project] Anyone mixing Matlab/Octave and Pharo?

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Hello all, Are any of you doing scientific computing on Pharo? I have some seriously old Numerical Recipes code that I altered and compiled, and more recently have used the GNU Scientific Library. All of that is connected to Dolphin, and it will take some time to adapt it to Pharo. Even more recently, I found reason to exceed GSL's feature list, and Octave might be able to do the job. The first thing would be do the minimum work to get some data into Octave and see how it does. Ideally, I would want to pipe data into Octave, get results from it, and then do some post-processing in Pharo. In GSL (dll/so) terms, the idea is to do all of the memory management and algorithm level work in Smalltalk, and the tight loops via the external code, and hopefully to do all of that w/o littering the drive with temporary files. Any experience, good or bad, in those directions? Bill

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by David Goehrig

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: > - dictionary lives in separate ivar, > - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance. > > What you think? I particularly like this idea from the standpoint of delivering a modules that exist within their own context. It is actually not that dissimilar from Forth systems that use different vocabs to support multiple incompatible applications at the same time. Something like this would solve one of the problems I've been running into recently, where some code keeps mucking up the SystemDictionary's associations causing the Compiler to error out. Dave -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://blog.dloh.org/

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] Re: Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by Igor Stasenko

2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel(a)cobss.com>: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:53:47 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> 2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : > > ... >>> >>> I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try >>> >>> Â Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk >>> >>> then you should see why that's not possible. >>> >> I don't see how this can be a barrier of any sort for a real hacker: >> >> (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) becomeForward: (#Smalltalk -> >> Smalltalk). >> >> Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk >> >> There are numerous ways how to get around this ;) > > Have you considered rehash, .image save & load ? Since i'm not touching the key - #Smalltalk, such change is immune from potential hashing issues. And yes, i saved & loaded image after this brutal hack. It works as usual. > I've thought about > replacing (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk)'s value many times and don't > want to risk other people's .images just because of *any* silly mistake. > That's why I'm interested in solutions to the practical side. > well this could be done once, tested & shipped with new "core" image. So you never need to be bothered with this again. >> Btw, this is another reason to not expose messages like >> #associationAt: to users. > > Yes, one reason is: do not expose #pointersTo:, since then #associationAt: > can be simulated. And just another one: do not expose #someObject or > #nextObject ( & friends), since then #pointersTo: can be simulated. (cough) > back to Smalltalk? :) > Right, lets better discuss the pros and cons of such change instead of harms to Smalltalk association :) >> Alas, associations is used by compiler. :( > > Sure. > > /Klaus > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

July 24, 2009

[Pharo-project] squeaksource is down

by Tudor Girba

Hi, It looks like squeaksource is down. Can anyone take a look? Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com "Relationships are of two kinds: those we choose and those that happen. They both matter."

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] powered by pharo

by Alexandre Bergel

Maybe this could be added to Pier per default no? Alexandre On 24 Jul 2009, at 02:56, Torsten Bergmann wrote: > For those who require it, see attachement. > > bye > Torsten > -- > Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate > fÃ¼r nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 > <pharopowered.png>_______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by Klaus D. Witzel

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:53:47 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > 2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : ... >> I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try >> >> Â Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk >> >> then you should see why that's not possible. >> > I don't see how this can be a barrier of any sort for a real hacker: > > (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) becomeForward: (#Smalltalk -> > Smalltalk). > > Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk > > There are numerous ways how to get around this ;) Have you considered rehash, .image save & load ? I've thought about replacing (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk)'s value many times and don't want to risk other people's .images just because of *any* silly mistake. That's why I'm interested in solutions to the practical side. > Btw, this is another reason to not expose messages like > #associationAt: to users. Yes, one reason is: do not expose #pointersTo:, since then #associationAt: can be simulated. And just another one: do not expose #someObject or #nextObject ( & friends), since then #pointersTo: can be simulated. (cough) back to Smalltalk? :) > Alas, associations is used by compiler. :( Sure. /Klaus

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by Igor Stasenko

2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel(a)cobss.com>: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:39:07 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> 2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : > ... >>>> So, what i'm proposing: > ... >>>> then simply: >>>> Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current). >>> >>> This part will not work, check yourself: >>> >>> Â (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect >>> >> in what way it wont work? > > I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try > > Â Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk > > then you should see why that's not possible. > I don't see how this can be a barrier of any sort for a real hacker: (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) becomeForward: (#Smalltalk -> Smalltalk). Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk There are numerous ways how to get around this ;) Btw, this is another reason to not expose messages like #associationAt: to users. Alas, associations is used by compiler. :( >> I can implement #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage class, to proxy it >> to globals ivar. What's wrong with it? > > With #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage? nothing, if it still makes sense. > >> Or do you mean, that we will end up with the need of proxying all >> Collection protocol methods? > > Some of them: yes; unless you get rid of "Dictionary" users' view. > >> There always can be more radical solutions, like proxying rest of >> stuff through DNU handler :) > > :) > >>> /Klaus > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by Klaus D. Witzel

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:39:07 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > 2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : ... >>> So, what i'm proposing: ... >>> then simply: >>> Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current). >> >> This part will not work, check yourself: >> >> Â (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect >> > in what way it wont work? I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk then you should see why that's not possible. > I can implement #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage class, to proxy it > to globals ivar. What's wrong with it? With #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage? nothing, if it still makes sense. > Or do you mean, that we will end up with the need of proxying all > Collection protocol methods? Some of them: yes; unless you get rid of "Dictionary" users' view. > There always can be more radical solutions, like proxying rest of > stuff through DNU handler :) :) >> /Klaus

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] [squeak-dev] Re: Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by Igor Stasenko

2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel(a)cobss.com>: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:27:36 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > >> I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage >> current' refactoring.. >> And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code >> which have to be ported from Squeak, >> i need to visit all the places and fix the references. >> >> I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , >> that i'm a heated enemy of global state. >> But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary >> of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, >> which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class. >> >> But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this >> 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much >> friendlier to 'old ways' >> but also plays well with 'current ways'. >> >> So, what i'm proposing: >> >> - make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra >> unrelated methods. >> - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary >> class >> - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods >> for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc. >> >> then simply: >> Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current). > > This part will not work, check yourself: > > Â (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect > in what way it wont work? I can implement #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage class, to proxy it to globals ivar. What's wrong with it? Or do you mean, that we will end up with the need of proxying all Collection protocol methods? There always can be more radical solutions, like proxying rest of stuff through DNU handler :) > /Klaus > >> Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: >> Â - dictionary lives in separate ivar, >> Â - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance. >> >> What you think? >> > > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

July 24, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes

by Klaus D. Witzel

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:27:36 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote: > I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage > current' refactoring.. > And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code > which have to be ported from Squeak, > i need to visit all the places and fix the references. > > I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , > that i'm a heated enemy of global state. > But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary > of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, > which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class. > > But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this > 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much > friendlier to 'old ways' > but also plays well with 'current ways'. > > So, what i'm proposing: > > - make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra > unrelated methods. > - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from > SystemDictionary class > - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods > for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc. > > then simply: > Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current). This part will not work, check yourself: (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect /Klaus > Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: > - dictionary lives in separate ivar, > - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance. > > What you think? >

July 24, 2009