- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] MDLApplication

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 28 Nov 2019, at 11:26, Julien Delplanque <julien.delplanque(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > Hello Sven, > > Did you try https://github.com/jecisc/MDBaseGenerator ? > > It generates a nice template for starting a new MDL webapp. OK that works fine, thanks ! > I do not know about MDLApplication. It is in the package Material-Design-Lite-Core, which seems to suggest it is an important class > Cheers, > > Julien > > Le 28/11/19 Ã 11:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe a Ã©crit : >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to use MaterialDesignLite (master branch in Pharo 7). The demo works perfectly. >> >> Now, I thought I would start writing a small web app by subclassing MDLApplication, since that seems to set up things properly. >> >> Is that class finished ? How am I supposed to use it ? There are screens, but how are these rendered ? Do I have to do this myself ? Must there not be an idea of a current screen ? >> >> MDLScreen is in fact an empty class. >> >> Although there are units tests for MDLApplication, there is no subclass, so no actual user. It feels a bit as if the demo should/could use it. >> >> Sven >

Nov. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Mm10s] 2019-11-25

by Steven Costiou

### Last week: - halt/breakpoint manager in the spec debugger: see all halt/breakpoints and (de)activate them in one click. When deactivated, a halt/breakpoint just prints a log message in the Transcript. - Pharo IOT book writing ### This week (starting 2019-11-25): - Pharo IOT book writing - add a "watch variable" window in the debugger to track variables during debugging ### Pipeline - Pharo IOT book - Enhancing the spec debugger: better breakpoint support, adding missing features (menus, options), fixing bugs - Integrating object-centric debugging in the spec2 tools - Writing a chapter/documentation about the Pharo debugger

Nov. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] MDLApplication

by Julien Delplanque

Hello Sven, Did you try https://github.com/jecisc/MDBaseGenerator ? It generates a nice template for starting a new MDL webapp. I do not know about MDLApplication. Cheers, Julien Le 28/11/19 Ã 11:16, Sven Van Caekenberghe a Ã©critÂ : > Hi, > > I am trying to use MaterialDesignLite (master branch in Pharo 7). The demo works perfectly. > > Now, I thought I would start writing a small web app by subclassing MDLApplication, since that seems to set up things properly. > > Is that class finished ? How am I supposed to use it ? There are screens, but how are these rendered ? Do I have to do this myself ? Must there not be an idea of a current screen ? > > MDLScreen is in fact an empty class. > > Although there are units tests for MDLApplication, there is no subclass, so no actual user. It feels a bit as if the demo should/could use it. > > Sven

Nov. 28, 2019

MDLApplication

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi, I am trying to use MaterialDesignLite (master branch in Pharo 7). The demo works perfectly. Now, I thought I would start writing a small web app by subclassing MDLApplication, since that seems to set up things properly. Is that class finished ? How am I supposed to use it ? There are screens, but how are these rendered ? Do I have to do this myself ? Must there not be an idea of a current screen ? MDLScreen is in fact an empty class. Although there are units tests for MDLApplication, there is no subclass, so no actual user. It feels a bit as if the demo should/could use it. Sven

Nov. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] BlueInk removal

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

This is all true, BUT ... Very few people attempt to do fundamental changes/cleanups/subsystem-replacements in the core image. This takes a lot of work, is never easy and almost always has issues. Resources are limited as well, in theory things can be done better, in practice in the real world, not so much. The alternative is to never touch anything and stay stagnant. > On 28 Nov 2019, at 10:03, Torsten Bergmann <astares(a)gmx.de> wrote: > > To me it certainly looks like a <before we freeze Pharo 8 we have to speed up with features> to get things in > by all means. Have to admit I had this kind of "panic mode" myself several times in the past too ;) > > Stef writes he now does not have the time nor energy - which I guess (including his reactions) is a tribute to his workload. > But then it would have been better to change to new Elumineire or getting rid of GTEventRecorder in Pharo 9 and now just marking > them for later exclusion. Because often we all underestimate the depencies, side effects, migration costs - even the reactions. > > Meanwhile Pharo is not only the base image - it is the full ecosystem around it which is good and a positive sign and > something we IMHO need to respect more and more. > > One has to understand that by just removing and not using deprecation the situation is getting worse and now pulling > more time and energy from other parts of the community too. Because broken stuff like Spotter, Settings, Roassal, Moose, ... > would need repair > - either directly (to help contributors who use them in P8 alpha already to give quick feedback) > - together with the Pharo 8 release so they can be used > - after Pharo 8 is released (which would be very late and might include migration surprises) > > Depreaction would help us better managing such transitions and is something that is standard in other languages too. > > The alternative would be to say this is OPP (other peoples problem) and completely ignoring that projects are built on top > of Pharo base. We all know removing leads to being incompatible and is not helpful in offering a transition path - therefore not > a good option. Because then users would always need to start from scratch with each Pharo release and loose interest quickly. > > Users want to do both: use Pharo and move their projects without having to focus on changed infrastructure > too often. Deprecation would give more room to fixing it- we have theses mechanisms like deprecations and we should really use them. > > In the past we were able to move more freely - but now we should really accept that with more users we have to > follow certain backwards compatibility and more clear rules. This slows us down yes and requires more time > and energy. But it is still a good thing because Pharo is actually used and the community can grow. > > We can not move Pharo into the "perfect" future with a crowbar as this would mean to loose users and especially > trust into the system. We might then still come up with an improved (but still imperfect) system in a few years - > but nobody would be interested anymore. If we fail to see things from the POV of the user then we will fail overall and loose them. > > I agree with Benoit that especially business users first have to solve the customers problems before they > can juggle with migrations. So lets support the overall community and not being ignorant to it. > So far we all managed it quite good: moving from Pharo 6 to 7 and even Pharo 8 is working because things over the last > releases stabilized and also because we added more rules, depreactions, transformations and helping users. > > I personally would prefer to see that "Pharo is not perfect but strong and widely used" than "look how cool it could have been", > so lets not get too impatient. Step by step - sometimes faster sometimes slower... > > Thanks > T. >

Nov. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] BlueInk removal

by Torsten Bergmann

To me it certainly looks like a <before we freeze Pharo 8 we have to speed up with features> to get things in by all means. Have to admit I had this kind of "panic mode" myself several times in the past too ;) Stef writes he now does not have the time nor energy - which I guess (including his reactions) is a tribute to his workload. But then it would have been better to change to new Elumineire or getting rid of GTEventRecorder in Pharo 9 and now just marking them for later exclusion. Because often we all underestimate the depencies, side effects, migration costs - even the reactions. Meanwhile Pharo is not only the base image - it is the full ecosystem around it which is good and a positive sign and something we IMHO need to respect more and more. One has to understand that by just removing and not using deprecation the situation is getting worse and now pulling more time and energy from other parts of the community too. Because broken stuff like Spotter, Settings, Roassal, Moose, ... would need repair - either directly (to help contributors who use them in P8 alpha already to give quick feedback) - together with the Pharo 8 release so they can be used - after Pharo 8 is released (which would be very late and might include migration surprises) Depreaction would help us better managing such transitions and is something that is standard in other languages too. The alternative would be to say this is OPP (other peoples problem) and completely ignoring that projects are built on top of Pharo base. We all know removing leads to being incompatible and is not helpful in offering a transition path - therefore not a good option. Because then users would always need to start from scratch with each Pharo release and loose interest quickly. Users want to do both: use Pharo and move their projects without having to focus on changed infrastructure too often. Deprecation would give more room to fixing it- we have theses mechanisms like deprecations and we should really use them. In the past we were able to move more freely - but now we should really accept that with more users we have to follow certain backwards compatibility and more clear rules. This slows us down yes and requires more time and energy. But it is still a good thing because Pharo is actually used and the community can grow. We can not move Pharo into the "perfect" future with a crowbar as this would mean to loose users and especially trust into the system. We might then still come up with an improved (but still imperfect) system in a few years - but nobody would be interested anymore. If we fail to see things from the POV of the user then we will fail overall and loose them. I agree with Benoit that especially business users first have to solve the customers problems before they can juggle with migrations. So lets support the overall community and not being ignorant to it. So far we all managed it quite good: moving from Pharo 6 to 7 and even Pharo 8 is working because things over the last releases stabilized and also because we added more rules, depreactions, transformations and helping users. I personally would prefer to see that "Pharo is not perfect but strong and widely used" than "look how cool it could have been", so lets not get too impatient. Step by step - sometimes faster sometimes slower... Thanks T.

Nov. 28, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #1022: In bootstrap: Preparing heap before writing the image to shrink its size

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1022 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #5255 was integrated: "In bootstrap: Preparing heap before writing the image to shrink its size" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/5255 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/Pharo8.0 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 28, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] BlueInk removal

by Benoit St-Jean

StÃ©phane, You could have said the exact same thing in nicer words, calmly WITHOUT SHOUTING and taking it personal. If people criticize stuff/work/code, it's because 1) they care about Pharo 2) they use Pharo. The day no one will complain on the list will mean Pharo's dead. It also means people have to deal with real projects and real apps and real customers and real migration problems. We have a tool called deprecation, let's use it. It'll save a lot of headaches to everyone. And if you remove stuff, give the developers an extra chance by at least informing them of the upcoming changes/removals by deprecating stuff, not just removing it without warning! I don't recall one single instance in my professional life when VisualWorks or VisualAge Smalltalk didn't provide EVERYTHING that was necessary to be compatible with the previous version to facilitate the job of their customers, us, the developers. Whether it was in the form of deprecated parcels or packages, Cincom & IBM (and now Instantiations) understood one thing : you don't migrate apps that generate millions a year like a tic-tac-toe project on GitHub. It takes time just to migrate from one version to the next, imagine the nightmare when "stuff had just been removed" out of the blue. If you want to see more commercial use of Pharo, you'll have to understand that! In the meantime, could you PLEASE stop taking criticism as if it was directed towards you and/or the Pharo devs? On 2019-11-27 15:31, ducasse wrote: > Cyril > > there is no deprecation for classes: yes I would have to subclass each class and provide old classes. > Sorry but *****I******* repackaged, cleaned the tests, cleaned the baseline, made sure that the baseline is working â¦. of > - GTRecorder (not used in Pharo since 3 YEARS). > - Enlumineur > > And I do not have nor the time or energy at the end of the day to do that in addition > to do all the deprecation and of course fix all the dependencies tests. > > Now if your message is that Pharo should stay with all that shit inside then perfect, Iâm off. > I have plenty of other things (and a lot more exciting to do). > > BTW I THE GUY THAT IS PRODUCING MIGRATOR: you see the idiot that is collecting all the deprecated methods > and packaged them so that OTHERS than me can migrate. > > So now for Blueink then you take 5 min and change your scripts. > So GTEvent recorder you ask alex or milton to see if we can get rid of the problem. > > I do not see why Moose is loading Roassal with it. > To me this is a bad dependency of Roassal. > > If Pharo puts on itself so much constraints then at the end may be I should stop and do something and see > how great this super kitchen sink will evolved. > > Have you ever dare to look at the BaselineOfPharo, IDE just for the fun. > > > >>> Yes, this could have been handled much better, I guess (I don't know the details). >>> >>> But for day to day work, you have to use Pharo 7, which should be 100% stable, while Pharo 8 is a moving target, an alpha version that is sometimes broken. >>> >> Hi, >> >> I agree that the alpha version does not have to be stable all the >> time, but I still don't think it justify to not deprecate things. >> >> When you are working on stable version only, it is still better to be >> able to migrate your projects from one version to the other via the >> deprecation than to have everything broken and not loadable. >> >> If you can't even load your code, it's much harder to fix it. So I >> still think that we should go via deprecations. It has really a low >> cost and make migrations so much easier. Especially it give us time >> instead of giving us an ultimatum "You want to change of version? Then >> you need to fix everything now". >> >>> Now, we still want users for Pharo 8, else there will be no feedback, so there are certainly two sides to this argument. >>> >>> Sven >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Cyril Ferlicot >> https://ferlicot.fr >> > > -- ----------------- BenoÃ®t St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean Twitter: @BenLeChialeux Pinterest: benoitstjean Instagram: Chef_Benito IRC: lamneth GitHub: bstjean Blogue: endormitoire.wordpress.com "A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero". (A. Einstein)

Nov. 28, 2019

[Pharo 8.0] Build #1021: 5246--AST-Core-Tests-package-disappeared

by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #1021 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #5254 was integrated: "5246--AST-Core-Tests-package-disappeared" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/5254 Issue Url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/issues/5246 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

Nov. 27, 2019

Re: [Pharo-dev] BlueInk removal

by Nicolas Cellier

Why is there no deprecation for classes? The class definition can belong to a deprecated package. For more advanced feature, the deprected globals could belong to another dictionary, a bit like Undeclared... Le mer. 27 nov. 2019 Ã 21:31, ducasse <stepharo(a)netcourrier.com> a Ã©crit : > Cyril > > there is no deprecation for classes: yes I would have to subclass each > class and provide old classes. > Sorry but *****I******* repackaged, cleaned the tests, cleaned the > baseline, made sure that the baseline is working â¦. of > - GTRecorder (not used in Pharo since 3 YEARS). > - Enlumineur > > And I do not have nor the time or energy at the end of the day to do that > in addition > to do all the deprecation and of course fix all the dependencies tests. > > Now if your message is that Pharo should stay with all that shit inside > then perfect, Iâm off. > I have plenty of other things (and a lot more exciting to do). > > BTW I THE GUY THAT IS PRODUCING MIGRATOR: you see the idiot that is > collecting all the deprecated methods > and packaged them so that OTHERS than me can migrate. > > So now for Blueink then you take 5 min and change your scripts. > So GTEvent recorder you ask alex or milton to see if we can get rid of the > problem. > > I do not see why Moose is loading Roassal with it. > To me this is a bad dependency of Roassal. > > If Pharo puts on itself so much constraints then at the end may be I > should stop and do something and see > how great this super kitchen sink will evolved. > > Have you ever dare to look at the BaselineOfPharo, IDE just for the fun. > > > > >> Yes, this could have been handled much better, I guess (I don't know > the details). > >> > >> But for day to day work, you have to use Pharo 7, which should be 100% > stable, while Pharo 8 is a moving target, an alpha version that is > sometimes broken. > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > I agree that the alpha version does not have to be stable all the > > time, but I still don't think it justify to not deprecate things. > > > > When you are working on stable version only, it is still better to be > > able to migrate your projects from one version to the other via the > > deprecation than to have everything broken and not loadable. > > > > If you can't even load your code, it's much harder to fix it. So I > > still think that we should go via deprecations. It has really a low > > cost and make migrations so much easier. Especially it give us time > > instead of giving us an ultimatum "You want to change of version? Then > > you need to fix everything now". > > > >> Now, we still want users for Pharo 8, else there will be no feedback, > so there are certainly two sides to this argument. > >> > >> Sven > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Cyril Ferlicot > > https://ferlicot.fr > > > > > >

Nov. 27, 2019