- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Help with FFI crash in latest Spur (only in Linux)

by Mariano Martinez Peck

Hi Ben, allf Ok, I can also confirm that doing ExternalAddress allocate: 76 does work in Linux. And yes, since it's opaque I don't have to map it and just allocating the correct size is enough. I expect this would work in all GNU libc (glibc) based UNIXses. Esteban, well, I thought the init function would do both, allocate and init, but in glibc it seems it only init. In OSX it seems it does both. But from the API point of view it's not explicit that they should allocate the space. Anyway, I think we get this working this time. Thanks all for the help. Now the problem I am facing (in Linux) is that my none blocking pipes do not seem to be none blocking or either feof() call is not working as expected. Ok, I have to deal with this one now. Thanks!! On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck > > <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Jan 8, 2016 4:13 PM, "Ben Coman" <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck > >>> <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Hi guys, > >>> > > >>> > I wonder if someone could give me a hand to find out why a FFI > calling I > >>> > am > >>> > doing is crashing. In OSX it works correct but I am testing in CentOS > >>> > and it > >>> > fails. I wonder if it also crashes in other Linuxes too. > >>> > >>> I only had enough time to run it a few time so you know it also > >>> crashes in Debian Jessie 32-bit. There were no debug logs. I got > >>> these sorts of messages... > >>> > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >>> *** Error in `/home/ben/tst/pharo-vm/pharo': free(): invalid next size > >>> (fast): 0x08841a70 *** > >>> > >>> pharo: malloc.c:3695: _int_malloc: Assertion `(unsigned long) (size) > >>> >= (unsigned long) (nb)' failed. > >>> *** Error in `/home/ben/tst/pharo-vm/pharo': malloc(): memory > >>> corruption: 0x0984c1e0 *** > >>> > >>> > >>> Searching github for "posix_spawn_file_actions_init " > >>> (https://git.io/vuSPL) > >>> I see a lot a function definitions of the form... > >>> int posix_spawn_file_actions_init(posix_spawn_file_actions_t *fa) > >>> { > >>> fa->__actions = 0; > >>> return 0; > >>> } > >>> > >>> ...so it seems you need to first allocate the space for the struct and > >>> then pass the address of that. > >> > >> I thought the same. But I also read in glibc that that the init and > destroy > >> would free and alloc exactly so that you don't have to do it. > >> > >> In fact, the structure is known to be opaque. I cannot rely in what I > see in > >> internet since each os may have a different. > >> > >> And I cant get the size of it from ffi so I cannot allocate > accurately. I > >> think I am screw. I don't want to go to plugin side grrr .. > >> > >> And osx does work. > >> > >> I think I will try against glibc rather than libc. > >> > >> Another idea? > >> > >>> { > >>> int __allocated; > >>> int __used; > >>> struct __spawn_action *__actions; > >>> int __pad[16]; > >>> } posix_spawn_file_actions_t; > >>> // http://linux.die.net/include/spawn.h > >>> > >> > >> But that's opaque right? I cannot rely on that > > > > Your ExternalAddress use only allocates 4 bytes for the pointer. You > > need to also allocate the space for the structure. I guess these may > > need separate ExternalXXX objects, but just as hack experiment I find > > below that n:=68 crashes and n:=69 its fine. > > Whoops, I missed that the space for the struct seems actually > allocated by ExternalAddress. Doh! there it is staring at me with the > #allocate: message. So I guess a separate ExternalXXX object isn't > required. > > > > > | posixSpawnFileActionsT n | > > n := 68. "n := 69" > > posixSpawnFileActionsT := ExternalAddress allocate: n. > > OSSUnixSubprocess new primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit: > > posixSpawnFileActionsT. > > posixSpawnFileActionsT free. > > > > > > In trying to understand this I found an interesting article... > > http://www.catb.org/esr/structure-packing/ > > What I don't know is for a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit machine, is my > > pointer 4 or 8 bytes? > > Assuming 4 I derive the structure size for my 32-bit system is... > > 4 int __allocated; > > 4 int __used; > > 4 struct __spawn_action *__actions; > > 64 int __pad[16]; > > 76 posix_spawn_file_actions_t; > > > > 76 - 68 = 8 is an interesting round number, but I can't quite reason it > out. > > btw I confirmed *my* structure size by compiling and running... > #include <stdio.h> > #include <spawn.h> > posix_spawn_file_actions_t tst; > int main() > { > printf("-->sizeof=%d\n", sizeof(posix_spawn_file_actions_t)); > } > > -->sizeof=76 > > cheers -ben > > > With FFI how to you allocate some external memory and then get a > > pointer to it to pass to primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit ? > > > > cheers -ben > > > >>> > I am using latest Pharo 5.0 with Spur. To reproduce: > >>> > > >>> > 1) Get latest Pharo 5.0 and Spur via: > >>> > wget -O- get.pharo.org/alpha+vm | bash > >>> > > >>> > 2) Inside Pharo, load my prototype tool: > >>> > > >>> > Gofer it > >>> > package: 'OSSubprocess'; > >>> > url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/marianopeck/OSSubprocess/main'; > >>> > load. > >>> > > >>> > 3) This is the code I am executing and it's crashing: > >>> > > >>> > | posixSpawnFileActionsT | posixSpawnFileActionsT := ExternalAddress > >>> > allocate: 4. OSSUnixSubprocess new > primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit: > >>> > posixSpawnFileActionsT. posixSpawnFileActionsT free. > >>> > 4) The primitive is as simple as: > >>> > > >>> > primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit: aPosixSpawnFileActionsT > >>> > ^ self ffiCall: #( int posix_spawn_file_actions_init(void* > >>> > aPosixSpawnFileActionsT) ) module: LibC > >>> > > >>> > I have no idea what I am doing wrong. And again, this works on OSX. > The > >>> > function I am calling is: int > >>> > posix_spawn_file_actions_init(posix_spawn_file_actions_t > *file_actions); > >>> > as > >>> > you can read in [1] > >>> > > >>> > Below is the stacktrace I get the Linux terminal. > >>> > > >>> > Any hint is greatly appreciated. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > [1] > >>> > > >>> > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/posix_spawn_file_… > >>> > > -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Help with FFI crash in latest Spur (only in Linux)

by Ben Coman

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 7:12 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck > <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 8, 2016 4:13 PM, "Ben Coman" <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck >>> <marianopeck(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Hi guys, >>> > >>> > I wonder if someone could give me a hand to find out why a FFI calling I >>> > am >>> > doing is crashing. In OSX it works correct but I am testing in CentOS >>> > and it >>> > fails. I wonder if it also crashes in other Linuxes too. >>> >>> I only had enough time to run it a few time so you know it also >>> crashes in Debian Jessie 32-bit. There were no debug logs. I got >>> these sorts of messages... >>> >> >> Thanks! >> >>> *** Error in `/home/ben/tst/pharo-vm/pharo': free(): invalid next size >>> (fast): 0x08841a70 *** >>> >>> pharo: malloc.c:3695: _int_malloc: Assertion `(unsigned long) (size) >>> >= (unsigned long) (nb)' failed. >>> *** Error in `/home/ben/tst/pharo-vm/pharo': malloc(): memory >>> corruption: 0x0984c1e0 *** >>> >>> >>> Searching github for "posix_spawn_file_actions_init " >>> (https://git.io/vuSPL) >>> I see a lot a function definitions of the form... >>> int posix_spawn_file_actions_init(posix_spawn_file_actions_t *fa) >>> { >>> fa->__actions = 0; >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> ...so it seems you need to first allocate the space for the struct and >>> then pass the address of that. >> >> I thought the same. But I also read in glibc that that the init and destroy >> would free and alloc exactly so that you don't have to do it. >> >> In fact, the structure is known to be opaque. I cannot rely in what I see in >> internet since each os may have a different. >> >> And I cant get the size of it from ffi so I cannot allocate accurately. I >> think I am screw. I don't want to go to plugin side grrr .. >> >> And osx does work. >> >> I think I will try against glibc rather than libc. >> >> Another idea? >> >>> { >>> int __allocated; >>> int __used; >>> struct __spawn_action *__actions; >>> int __pad[16]; >>> } posix_spawn_file_actions_t; >>> // http://linux.die.net/include/spawn.h >>> >> >> But that's opaque right? I cannot rely on that > > Your ExternalAddress use only allocates 4 bytes for the pointer. You > need to also allocate the space for the structure. I guess these may > need separate ExternalXXX objects, but just as hack experiment I find > below that n:=68 crashes and n:=69 its fine. Whoops, I missed that the space for the struct seems actually allocated by ExternalAddress. Doh! there it is staring at me with the #allocate: message. So I guess a separate ExternalXXX object isn't required. > > | posixSpawnFileActionsT n | > n := 68. "n := 69" > posixSpawnFileActionsT := ExternalAddress allocate: n. > OSSUnixSubprocess new primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit: > posixSpawnFileActionsT. > posixSpawnFileActionsT free. > > > In trying to understand this I found an interesting article... > http://www.catb.org/esr/structure-packing/ > What I don't know is for a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit machine, is my > pointer 4 or 8 bytes? > Assuming 4 I derive the structure size for my 32-bit system is... > 4 int __allocated; > 4 int __used; > 4 struct __spawn_action *__actions; > 64 int __pad[16]; > 76 posix_spawn_file_actions_t; > > 76 - 68 = 8 is an interesting round number, but I can't quite reason it out. btw I confirmed *my* structure size by compiling and running... #include <stdio.h> #include <spawn.h> posix_spawn_file_actions_t tst; int main() { printf("-->sizeof=%d\n", sizeof(posix_spawn_file_actions_t)); } -->sizeof=76 cheers -ben > With FFI how to you allocate some external memory and then get a > pointer to it to pass to primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit ? > > cheers -ben > >>> > I am using latest Pharo 5.0 with Spur. To reproduce: >>> > >>> > 1) Get latest Pharo 5.0 and Spur via: >>> > wget -O- get.pharo.org/alpha+vm | bash >>> > >>> > 2) Inside Pharo, load my prototype tool: >>> > >>> > Gofer it >>> > package: 'OSSubprocess'; >>> > url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/marianopeck/OSSubprocess/main'; >>> > load. >>> > >>> > 3) This is the code I am executing and it's crashing: >>> > >>> > | posixSpawnFileActionsT | posixSpawnFileActionsT := ExternalAddress >>> > allocate: 4. OSSUnixSubprocess new primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit: >>> > posixSpawnFileActionsT. posixSpawnFileActionsT free. >>> > 4) The primitive is as simple as: >>> > >>> > primitivePosixSpawnFileActionsInit: aPosixSpawnFileActionsT >>> > ^ self ffiCall: #( int posix_spawn_file_actions_init(void* >>> > aPosixSpawnFileActionsT) ) module: LibC >>> > >>> > I have no idea what I am doing wrong. And again, this works on OSX. The >>> > function I am calling is: int >>> > posix_spawn_file_actions_init(posix_spawn_file_actions_t *file_actions); >>> > as >>> > you can read in [1] >>> > >>> > Below is the stacktrace I get the Linux terminal. >>> > >>> > Any hint is greatly appreciated. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > >>> > [1] >>> > >>> > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/posix_spawn_file_… >>>

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] gtdebugger in pharo 5.0

by Dimitris Chloupis

there has been around a script to automate the screenshots, but personally I never bother using it because taking a screenshot and inserting in pillar is the easiest thing.On macos is just CMD+SHIFT+4 and you just choose the area you want to screenshot and thats it, it takes a second. Documentation itself is the hard part. Plus I can help with the screenshots , its not big deal. I even have access to the github repo of Mooc but I just try to focus on UPBE. My connection is down at the moment, but when it will be up again, I will be able to help. On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:33 PM Stephan Eggermont <stephan(a)stack.nl> wrote: > On 08-01-16 21:22, stepharo wrote: > > - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to > > redo all the screenshots > > of our lecture. > > What do you need to automate the screenshots? > > Stephan > > >

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why pharo is going over squeaksource when saving code?

by Dimitris Chloupis

eeeehhh that was happening forever at least the last 2 years I am around. How come you guys just noticed ? On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > I saw that too, I choked in my coffee ;-) > > > On 09 Jan 2016, at 10:07, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > may be I'm dreaming this morning but when I saved code in the inbox I > saw a query to www.squeaksource.com? > > > > Stef > > > > >

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] gtdebugger in pharo 5.0

by Stephan Eggermont

On 08-01-16 21:22, stepharo wrote: > - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to > redo all the screenshots > of our lecture. What do you need to automate the screenshots? Stephan

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] gtdebugger in pharo 5.0

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Very nice (also because of the Dark theme ;-) > On 09 Jan 2016, at 11:01, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > again re-send because of exceed limits with the image (thatâs new?) > > with a small tweak, texts (AND icons :P): > > > <Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 10.59.20.png> > > would that be aceptable for you? > > cheers! > Esteban > >> On 09 Jan 2016, at 09:43, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (re-send because I exceeded limit.) >> >> Hi, >> >> letâs think positive. >> the GTDebugger is a step forwardâ¦ it allow a lot of better interactions and of course, it needs some iterations to make it appealing to everybody. >> For instance, I took me 2â to tweak the debugger presentation and to get this: >> >> <Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 09.29.59.png> >> >> (I changed all availableâ¦ is a trivial task) >> >> and like IMO feels a lot betterâ¦ and I think is a good compromise between the old and the new. >> Reasons to suggest this approach: >> >> - it keeps old approach who(I think) was good (I can see the stack, and the flow feels natural from top to down) >> - it preserves âthe importantâ (the code) as central. >> - it gives space for adding columns (like the bytecode). >> >> Nowâ¦ I can understand you want icons with text, and that can be hacked tooâ¦ >> >> Soâ¦ can we have an agreement? >> >> Esteban >> >> ps: btwâ¦ using GT with Fast Table we can also avoid those annoying paginated lists too >> >>> On 09 Jan 2016, at 08:53, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for your testimony. >>> >>> I'm not against GTDebugger per se. I believe that we should have better tools >>> but we should take time for building better tools (even if this is two years that moosers use or not this new debugger). >>> I would appreciate a process where users can give real feedback and we can simplify/shape our tools nicely. >>> >>> Now for the mooc I will not present GTDebugger. So students will not use Pharo 50 >>> >>> Stef >>> >>>> Le 08/01/2016 21:22, stepharo a Ã©crit : >>>>> I'm sorry but this debugger should not be the default one. >>>>> MONDAY we are filming our mooc and we have to explain the debugger and >>>>> personally I do not see the gain: >>>>> - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to >>>>> redo all the screenshots >>>>> of our lecture. >>>>> - Just that I have to learn the meaning of small icons. >>>>> - Why do we need a special pane for the evaluator >>>>> - Why there is a type column. >>>>> - Sorry but I'm not convinced about the moldable aspect behind the >>>>> story (no need to argue I know it) >>>>> >>>>> I would like to avoid to be forced to use not the latest version of >>>>> Pharo for the mooc. >>>>> >>>>> Such changes are arriving far too late in the release. We do not change >>>>> the debugger itself the day of code freeze. >>>>> >>>>> We decided that the GTDebugger can be included but to me it never meant >>>>> that it should be the default one. >>>>> I think that experts can choose the debugger they want. The newbies don't. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> >>>> IMO the old debugger is way more intuitive. >>>> When I used the debugger of Eclipse for java I was lost. When I used >>>> Spec debugger I thought "Oh, this is not so hard in fact". And I lose >>>> the feeling with GTDebugger. And the debugger is one of the main source >>>> of interest for newbies. >>>> >>>> Maybe we could have a button on the spec Debugger "Switch to GTDebugger"? >>>> >>> >>> >> >

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] gtdebugger in pharo 5.0

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Thanks for this wonderfully positive message !! That is the spirit. > On 09 Jan 2016, at 10:49, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Since I am the mainn maintainer of UPBE and pretty much alone, I will have to disagree, I have expressed my dislike for GT tools in the past, I was quite vocal about my dislike about GTPlayground and especially the pages interface of GTInspector. > > Yet even though I am the one that usually ends up keep pushing UPBE forward the most, I never said dont include this GT tool because I will have to document it. > > As a matter of fact GT people are the rare breed of pharoers , close to extinction level, that bothers documenting its own tools making my job super easy and a matter of porting their blog posts to Pillar. > > Also its important to note here that our dear beloved debugger is decades old, maybe just maybe its time to try something new even if we dont like it. > > Afterall GT people were quick to adress my problems of Playground like the lack of copy paste in right click menu, the lack of tabs etc. We objected and criticised, they improved . End of story. None complains about the Playground anymore. > > Its also important to note that they constantly pushing pharo forward. > > On the matters of documentation I will accept zero excuses from this community. If one spent 10 minutes per week, I repeat 10 minutes per week, on contributing to UPBE we would have the following > > 1) a person even a slow typer, types at least 40 words per minute > 2) in 10 minutes one can type 400 words > 3) That is one page of UPBE (pdf version) in 10 minutes > 4) thats 50 pages per year per person > 5) if people who are experienced are at least 10, I think we can find 10 people who understand pharo deeply , thats 500 pages per year > > we end up with the conclusion that the UPBE with extremely limited effort and extremely low amount of people would have by now the last 7 years that Pharo is around , 3500 pages of documentation. > > But since 10 people is too few and there a lot more judging from the mailing list , I will say 100 people is more realistic which means 35.000 pages or to put it more in perspective , thats the total of 10 UPBE books > > I repeat 10 UPBE BOOKS !!!!! > > > So no no no and NO dont exclude the new debugger because of the effort to document, I respect Stef he and Damien are the ones responsible for the existenve of UPBE and PBE in the first place, they also helped me alot with Dimitri to port many chapters to pharo 4. Plus I love Pillar for documentation its awesome even with its flaws. > > > But I say that GT people earned my trust, my trust that the have desire and visions to push Pharo forward and I say let them put the Debugger in who is going to hurt , it can be disabled and bring back the old one. Same story with Playground but seriously who bring back the old workspace ? > > Let them take the criticism and improve the new debugger, its a new thing of course it will have its flaws. But I dont want a Pharo that works well, I want a Pharo that keeps going forward. > > I have not the opportunity to download a new image because of my lack my connection is down and I use my mobile connection to do the minimum because it costs too much. > > But even if I heavily dislike the debugger like I did the the Playground I know that GT people will listen and will improve it, for that I have zero doubts because I admire their efforts even when I disagree with them. > > > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:19 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:22 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > I'm sorry but this debugger should not be the default one. > > MONDAY we are filming our mooc and we have to explain the debugger and > > personally I do not see the gain: > > - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to redo > > all the screenshots > > of our lecture. > > - Just that I have to learn the meaning of small icons. > > - Why do we need a special pane for the evaluator > > - Why there is a type column. > > - Sorry but I'm not convinced about the moldable aspect behind the story > > (no need to argue I know it) > > This also applies to UPBE. It would be good to get that out the door > matching Pharo 5 without too much rework. > > cheers -ben > > > > I would like to avoid to be forced to use not the latest version of Pharo > > for the mooc. > > > > Such changes are arriving far too late in the release. We do not change the > > debugger itself the day of code freeze. > > > > We decided that the GTDebugger can be included but to me it never meant that > > it should be the default one. > > I think that experts can choose the debugger they want. The newbies don't. > > > > Stef > > > > >

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] gtdebugger in pharo 5.0

by Dimitris Chloupis

any idea when that will happen ? On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:19 PM Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > You get it in the Moose image until it gets integrated :). > > Doru > > > > On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:11 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > looks lovely > > > > Is there a way to add the new debugger to my existing image ? How I get > the new debugger, I downloaded the latest image and is not in it, > > > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 12:02 PM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > again re-send because of exceed limits with the image (thatâs new?) > > > > with a small tweak, texts (AND icons :P): > > > > > > <Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 10.59.20.png> > > > > would that be aceptable for you? > > > > cheers! > > Esteban > >> On 09 Jan 2016, at 09:43, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> (re-send because I exceeded limit.) > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> letâs think positive. > >> the GTDebugger is a step forwardâ¦ it allow a lot of better interactions > and of course, it needs some iterations to make it appealing to everybody. > >> For instance, I took me 2â to tweak the debugger presentation and to > get this: > >> > >> <Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 09.29.59.png> > >> > >> (I changed all availableâ¦ is a trivial task) > >> > >> and like IMO feels a lot betterâ¦ and I think is a good compromise > between the old and the new. > >> Reasons to suggest this approach: > >> > >> - it keeps old approach who(I think) was good (I can see the stack, and > the flow feels natural from top to down) > >> - it preserves âthe importantâ (the code) as central. > >> - it gives space for adding columns (like the bytecode). > >> > >> Nowâ¦ I can understand you want icons with text, and that can be hacked > tooâ¦ > >> > >> Soâ¦ can we have an agreement? > >> > >> Esteban > >> > >> ps: btwâ¦ using GT with Fast Table we can also avoid those annoying > paginated lists too > >> > >>> On 09 Jan 2016, at 08:53, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks for your testimony. > >>> > >>> I'm not against GTDebugger per se. I believe that we should have > better tools > >>> but we should take time for building better tools (even if this is two > years that moosers use or not this new debugger). > >>> I would appreciate a process where users can give real feedback and we > can simplify/shape our tools nicely. > >>> > >>> Now for the mooc I will not present GTDebugger. So students will not > use Pharo 50 > >>> > >>> Stef > >>> > >>>> Le 08/01/2016 21:22, stepharo a Ã©crit : > >>>>> I'm sorry but this debugger should not be the default one. > >>>>> MONDAY we are filming our mooc and we have to explain the debugger > and > >>>>> personally I do not see the gain: > >>>>> - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to > >>>>> redo all the screenshots > >>>>> of our lecture. > >>>>> - Just that I have to learn the meaning of small icons. > >>>>> - Why do we need a special pane for the evaluator > >>>>> - Why there is a type column. > >>>>> - Sorry but I'm not convinced about the moldable aspect behind > the > >>>>> story (no need to argue I know it) > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to avoid to be forced to use not the latest version of > >>>>> Pharo for the mooc. > >>>>> > >>>>> Such changes are arriving far too late in the release. We do not > change > >>>>> the debugger itself the day of code freeze. > >>>>> > >>>>> We decided that the GTDebugger can be included but to me it never > meant > >>>>> that it should be the default one. > >>>>> I think that experts can choose the debugger they want. The newbies > don't. > >>>>> > >>>>> Stef > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> IMO the old debugger is way more intuitive. > >>>> When I used the debugger of Eclipse for java I was lost. When I used > >>>> Spec debugger I thought "Oh, this is not so hard in fact". And I lose > >>>> the feeling with GTDebugger. And the debugger is one of the main > source > >>>> of interest for newbies. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe we could have a button on the spec Debugger "Switch to > GTDebugger"? > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "In a world where everything is moving ever faster, > one might have better chances to win by moving slower." > > > > > >

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] Why pharo is going over squeaksource when saving code?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

I saw that too, I choked in my coffee ;-) > On 09 Jan 2016, at 10:07, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > may be I'm dreaming this morning but when I saved code in the inbox I saw a query to www.squeaksource.com? > > Stef >

Jan. 9, 2016

Re: [Pharo-dev] gtdebugger in pharo 5.0

by Nicolai Hess

No one said, dont integrale it. Just not yet as the default Debugger. Am 09.01.2016 10:51 vorm. schrieb "Dimitris Chloupis" <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com >: > > Since I am the mainn maintainer of UPBE and pretty much alone, I will have to disagree, I have expressed my dislike for GT tools in the past, I was quite vocal about my dislike about GTPlayground and especially the pages interface of GTInspector. > > Yet even though I am the one that usually ends up keep pushing UPBE forward the most, I never said dont include this GT tool because I will have to document it. > > As a matter of fact GT people are the rare breed of pharoers , close to extinction level, that bothers documenting its own tools making my job super easy and a matter of porting their blog posts to Pillar. > > Also its important to note here that our dear beloved debugger is decades old, maybe just maybe its time to try something new even if we dont like it. > > Afterall GT people were quick to adress my problems of Playground like the lack of copy paste in right click menu, the lack of tabs etc. We objected and criticised, they improved . End of story. None complains about the Playground anymore. > > Its also important to note that they constantly pushing pharo forward. > > On the matters of documentation I will accept zero excuses from this community. If one spent 10 minutes per week, I repeat 10 minutes per week, on contributing to UPBE we would have the following > > 1) a person even a slow typer, types at least 40 words per minute > 2) in 10 minutes one can type 400 words > 3) That is one page of UPBE (pdf version) in 10 minutes > 4) thats 50 pages per year per person > 5) if people who are experienced are at least 10, I think we can find 10 people who understand pharo deeply , thats 500 pages per year > > we end up with the conclusion that the UPBE with extremely limited effort and extremely low amount of people would have by now the last 7 years that Pharo is around , 3500 pages of documentation. > > But since 10 people is too few and there a lot more judging from the mailing list , I will say 100 people is more realistic which means 35.000 pages or to put it more in perspective , thats the total of 10 UPBE books > > I repeat 10 UPBE BOOKS !!!!! > > > So no no no and NO dont exclude the new debugger because of the effort to document, I respect Stef he and Damien are the ones responsible for the existenve of UPBE and PBE in the first place, they also helped me alot with Dimitri to port many chapters to pharo 4. Plus I love Pillar for documentation its awesome even with its flaws. > > > But I say that GT people earned my trust, my trust that the have desire and visions to push Pharo forward and I say let them put the Debugger in who is going to hurt , it can be disabled and bring back the old one. Same story with Playground but seriously who bring back the old workspace ? > > Let them take the criticism and improve the new debugger, its a new thing of course it will have its flaws. But I dont want a Pharo that works well, I want a Pharo that keeps going forward. > > I have not the opportunity to download a new image because of my lack my connection is down and I use my mobile connection to do the minimum because it costs too much. > > But even if I heavily dislike the debugger like I did the the Playground I know that GT people will listen and will improve it, for that I have zero doubts because I admire their efforts even when I disagree with them. > > > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:19 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:22 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> > I'm sorry but this debugger should not be the default one. >> > MONDAY we are filming our mooc and we have to explain the debugger and >> > personally I do not see the gain: >> > - It looks a lot more complex to me and I do not want to have to redo >> > all the screenshots >> > of our lecture. >> > - Just that I have to learn the meaning of small icons. >> > - Why do we need a special pane for the evaluator >> > - Why there is a type column. >> > - Sorry but I'm not convinced about the moldable aspect behind the story >> > (no need to argue I know it) >> >> This also applies to UPBE. It would be good to get that out the door >> matching Pharo 5 without too much rework. >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> > I would like to avoid to be forced to use not the latest version of Pharo >> > for the mooc. >> > >> > Such changes are arriving far too late in the release. We do not change the >> > debugger itself the day of code freeze. >> > >> > We decided that the GTDebugger can be included but to me it never meant that >> > it should be the default one. >> > I think that experts can choose the debugger they want. The newbies don't. >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > >>

Jan. 9, 2016