- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Igor Stasenko

My 2 cents: one of the ways to stay 'compatible' is become a de-facto standart because of high popularity :) 2009/6/21 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > > On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> + 100000000 :) >>> >>> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >>> >> Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us >> not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't >> think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and >> improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. >> And >> no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change >> anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. > > Exact :) > >> This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use >> such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. >> So Â you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly >> in- >> appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like >> this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for >> improvement we should not miss. > > totally true. > >> And I hope you can see that the support >> for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. > > unfortunately > >> The beauty and the >> strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. >> >> Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so >> hence >> the more harsh tone :) > > No problem, we are discussing :) > Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible > compatibility with X and Z. > > >> >> Norbert >> >> On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>>> >>>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>>> what >>>>> all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>>> for >>>>> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >>>>> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >>>>> session. >>>> >>>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>>> possibility >>>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>>> e.g. >>>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>>> end, this means we can not >>>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>>> things anymore. >>>> >>>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>>> the >>>> dialects, and than >>>> stop doing anything. >>>> >>>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>>> what would you take? >>>> >>>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>>> route, I guess. It makes >>>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>>> That makes no sense. >>>> >>>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>>> interesting things is part of the >>>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>>> >>>> Â Â Marcus >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>>> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> + 100000000 :) >> >> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >> > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us > not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't > think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and > improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. > And > no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change > anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. Exact :) > This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use > such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. > So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly > in- > appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like > this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for > improvement we should not miss. totally true. > And I hope you can see that the support > for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. unfortunately > The beauty and the > strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. > > Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so > hence > the more harsh tone :) No problem, we are discussing :) Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible compatibility with X and Z. > > Norbert > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>> >>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>> >>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>> what >>>> all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>> for >>>> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >>>> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >>>> session. >>> >>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>> possibility >>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>> e.g. >>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>> end, this means we can not >>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>> things anymore. >>> >>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>> the >>> dialects, and than >>> stop doing anything. >>> >>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>> what would you take? >>> >>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>> route, I guess. It makes >>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>> That makes no sense. >>> >>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>> interesting things is part of the >>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> -- >>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Norbert Hartl

On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > + 100000000 :) > > I want to invent a reasonable future :) > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. And no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly in- appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for improvement we should not miss. And I hope you can see that the support for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. The beauty and the strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so hence the more harsh tone :) Norbert On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > > > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > > > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > >> > >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > >> all I installed last year, at the moment. > >> > >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place > >> for > >> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > >> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > >> session. > > > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > > possibility > > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > > e.g. > > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > > end, this means we can not > > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > > things anymore. > > > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > > dialects, and than > > stop doing anything. > > > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > > compatible to VisualWorks", > > what would you take? > > > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > > route, I guess. It makes > > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > > That makes no sense. > > > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > > interesting things is part of the > > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > > > Marcus > > > > -- > > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > > PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Cameron Sanders

I understand your point ... really! It has to be fun. ... I'm just saying, it would be nice if simple classes could port over with no effort. oh ... never mind... ciao, cam On Jun 20, 2009, at 3:46 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the >> dialects, and than >> stop doing anything.

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] space left...

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

change the thread if you want to get an answer On Jun 21, 2009, at 1:24 AM, Carlos Crosetti wrote: > amd cpu, 768mb ram (physical), win xp sp3, pharo 0.1 #10342 > > debug>space left... > 7,259,612 bytes (internal) > 265,688,060 bytes (phusical) > 515,704,284 bytes (total) > > Please send me to a page showing how to inerpret this... > Quick question is: how much memory my actual pharo vm is connsuming > and when > the "low space watcher" is going to start sending alerts? > > Regards, Carlos > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Andrey Larionov

As i remember there are somithing called EasyMorphic. Maybe it could adapted to Polymorph? On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 06:04, Serge Stinckwich<serge.stinckwich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Denker<denker(a)acm.org> wrote: >> > >> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >> route, I guess. It makes >> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >> That makes no sense. >> >> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >> interesting things is part of the >> overall compensation package of people in Research. > > I like your argument ;-) > > -- > Serge Stinckwich > UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam > Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] > http://doesnotunderstand.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Serge Stinckwich

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Marcus Denker<denker(a)acm.org> wrote: > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > route, I guess. It makes > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > That makes no sense. > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > interesting things is part of the > overall compensation package of people in Research. I like your argument ;-) -- Serge Stinckwich UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC), Hanoi, Vietnam Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)] http://doesnotunderstand.org/

June 21, 2009

[Pharo-project] space left...

by Carlos Crosetti

amd cpu, 768mb ram (physical), win xp sp3, pharo 0.1 #10342 debug>space left... 7,259,612 bytes (internal) 265,688,060 bytes (phusical) 515,704,284 bytes (total) Please send me to a page showing how to inerpret this... Quick question is: how much memory my actual pharo vm is connsuming and when the "low space watcher" is going to start sending alerts? Regards, Carlos

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)

by Carlos Crosetti

I think the UI Builder should not be in the scope of Pharo. A different group could be constituted and build on their own effort and funding, providing "one-click experience" images for Pharo and (why not) Squeak. Take Seaside as a model to follow. -----Mensaje original----- De: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr]En nombre de StÃ©phane Ducasse Enviado el: SÃ¡bado, 20 de Junio de 2009 04:52 p.m. Para: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Asunto: Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S) On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the > system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay > alone. > > I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty > compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. yes we will see. > I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like > syntax and this > is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make > its > syntax eternally useful and feature complete. exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting in addition. > Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the > fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here > are a lot of opportunities to evolve. We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk). I want a safer Smalltalk I want security concept cool sandbox cool module may be new concurrency model new compilers well modularised system fast loading I would love to have cool visibility mechanism pluggable type systems > Best regards > Janko > > P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while > other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. May be at the end we will fork again and create something for researcher only but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound evolution. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.560 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 05:53 p.m.

June 20, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Compatibility (was Making GUI'S)

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko MivÅ¡ek wrote: > Hi Marcus, > > I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the > system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay > alone. > > I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty > compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters. yes we will see. > I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like > syntax and this > is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make > its > syntax eternally useful and feature complete. exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting in addition. > Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the > fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here > are a lot of opportunities to evolve. We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk). I want a safer Smalltalk I want security concept cool sandbox cool module may be new concurrency model new compilers well modularised system fast loading I would love to have cool visibility mechanism pluggable type systems > Best regards > Janko > > P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while > other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far. May be at the end we will fork again and create something for researcher only but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound evolution. Stef

June 20, 2009