- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Downloading file with Zinc
by Stephane Ducasse Dec. 23, 2018

Dec. 23, 2018

Hi Sven I would like download files (pdf) with Zinc (not opening them in Pharo). I wonder how I can do it with zinc. Tx

4 5

stfx.eu down
by Sven Van Caekenberghe Dec. 23, 2018

Dec. 23, 2018

Hi, This evening I somehow broke my stfx.eu server while doing an ubuntu dist upgrade (an old AWS EC2 machine). This means several websites / web services hosted by that machine are down, most notably mc.stfx.eu (hosting several of my packages) and ws.stfx.eu (used for shared smalltalk workspaces). A couple of Zinc tests will also fail. For source code access, all my public repos exist both in an up to date form on GitHub (http://github.com/svenvc) as well in the original form in SmalltalkHub (http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~SvenVanCaekenberghe) or SS3. The main problem there is that the distributed ConfigurationsOf and Catalog entries will still point to the original. This is not a problem with git's BaselineOf definitions. Although the machine will no longer boot, I managed to mount the original volume on another instance so I can still access the whole filesystem. This will make it possible to eventually recover most services. But this will take time as these things never happen when it is convenient. It will give me an opportunity to modernise the setup though, which is good. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sven

3 4

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Moose-dev] Re: glamorous toolkit: v0.4.0
by Ben Coman Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 06:03, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I share your feeling of wonder and also concern Luke. > > In my case, I used (old) GT tools to prototype Grafoscopio and now that the PhD thesis is practically done and only dissertation is pending, I would like to prepare myself to migrate Grafoscopio to Pharo 7, including bug fixing, stability, improved functionality, Iceberg for code management (but supporting Fossil instead of Git). > > I think that there is a lot of possibilities in the new GT tools and I like some of them going into interactive documentation (a line I was trying to explore with Pharo using Grafoscopio). But anytime I tried to use it I stumble upon a stop: > > First time was something related with me having some kind of credential enabled in GitHub to simple use it. I lost a whole morning just enabling that and reporting it. Was this on Windows? What was the fix for worked for you? (sorry its easier to ask again than try to identify in the archives a previous mention) cheers -ben > It was related with some mozilla library for font redering that didn't work well at the end. > Today I tried with the prebuild Linux image and Pharo Launcher, but I got an error message about inability to determine proper VM and when I tried installing it from Pharo 7 I got something related with a MemoryFileWriteStream dependency to be resolved before proper installation. > > I understand that this is alpha software and demos look amazing, but just running them requires a lot of work that previous GT didn't require. > > This brings me this feeling that these jumps in Pharo put core of the user experience at risk (kind of) and you end wondering how much an old tech will be maintained once the jump to the new shinny stuff is done and which is the migration path. > > In my case, I would like to have something like a Zeroconf script that just takes care of the external libraries, VM and image, to have a real glipmse of the upcoming future, beside the Tweets (which look great BTW). Maybe it will happen in a year or two, once it is properly integrated with Pharo, Zeroconf and thought for "end users" of interactive documents, which don't want to enable GitHub stuff, deal with external rendering dependencies and so on. Now the experience of using GT is kind of hostile for that users. > > Anyway, keep the good work and sharing it. Hopefully at some point it will reach the beta status, where users like myself can use it smoothly and build on GT's promises and interesting features. > > Cheers, > > Offray > > On 21/12/18 10:59, Luke Gorrie wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:58, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> >> The goal of the new GT is to propose a completely reshaped programming experience that enables moldable development. You will find the concepts from the old GT in the new world as well. For example, the Inspector is extensible in similar ways and the API is similar as well. > > [...] >> >> Does this address the concern? > > > I am not sure yet :). > > Programming is not our main use case for GT. We are using GT as an object inspector (etc) for examining diagnostic data. We have a Smalltalk application that's similar to GDB and we are using GT as the front-end. > > In our world we use the Inspector and the Spotter but all of the Smalltalk programming views are hidden. GT is "molded" to be a diagnostic tool *instead of* a programming environment. Specifically, our main use case is inspecting/debugging the operation of a JIT compiler written in C. We have Smalltalk code to load binary coredumps from the JIT, decode them using DWARF debug information, and represent the application-level compiler data structures as Smalltalk objects. This way we can use GT to browse generated code, cross-reference profiler data, examine runtime compilation errors, etc. > > The "old" GT is awesome for this. I feel like this application is also very much in the spirit of the "moldable tools" thesis. Lots of diagnostic workflows ultimately boil down to drill-down inspecting and/or searching. > > I don't know where we stand with respect to the "new" GT though. I am talking about diagnostics, you are talking about programming. I am talking about zeros and ones, you are talking about feelings. I am maintaining a stable application, you are talking about rewrites. I am having a hard time whether I should be switching to the new GT in the immediate future, or waiting another year or two for it to mature, or planning to stick with the old GT. > > Hints would be appreciated :) > > I reiterate that I think you guys are doing fantastic work - some of the most interesting work in the programming universe to my mind. I hope that this discussion is useful for at least understanding the thought process of some users / potential users. > > Cheers! > -Luke > > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

1 0

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Moose-dev] Re: glamorous toolkit: v0.4.0
by Tudor Girba Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

Hi Offray, Thanks for describing your concerns. First, letâs address the technical part. Please go to gtoolkit.com and download the 64Bit distribution that includes the image and the VM. We will remove the standalone image option from the website until the VM situation gets clarified. Now, a clarification. The old GT was produced over a period of 4 years by an open-source team. The project had its own identity, and in 2014 the core of it was first integrated in Pharo. I say the core of it, because the visual part and other libraries are not in Pharo today. The full potential is found in Moose. In any case, during this process, GT got to be identified with Pharo and that was a good thing. The new GT is a product produced by feenk, a company. Much of the original team is still active in the new version, but now we commit to our product in a different way. The product is free and open-source, but itâs still a product with an identity and a goal. At present time, both the team, identity and goal are different than those of Pharo. Our goal is to offer a fundamentally new alternative to program (including comparing to what is possible now in Pharo). We are not looking for marginal improvements, and we are not aiming at backward compatibility. To build this alternative we invested in a whole new stack. That is not a tiny challenge and getting it right requires many iterations and feedback. We say we are in alpha not because of inconveniences of installation but because we are still very much developing the product. We announced the first alpha version in September and since then much has changed. At present time, we did manage to reach a situation where downloading the distribution should run on Mac, Linux and Windows. Even so, the current version is only for people that do want to try knowing that there will be hurdles. A word about the user experience. The current version runs inside the Pharo UI because we need to bootstrap. But, our goal is to build a complete IDE on the new stack. If you want to judge the user experience, it is only meaningful to do it within the GT windows, and not by comparing it with the rest of the existing Pharo UI. Does this clarify the situation? Cheers, Doru -- www.feenk.com "Every thing has its own flow." > On 21 Dec 2018, at 23:02, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas <offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I share your feeling of wonder and also concern Luke. > > In my case, I used (old) GT tools to prototype Grafoscopio and now that the PhD thesis is practically done and only dissertation is pending, I would like to prepare myself to migrate Grafoscopio to Pharo 7, including bug fixing, stability, improved functionality, Iceberg for code management (but supporting Fossil instead of Git). > > I think that there is a lot of possibilities in the new GT tools and I like some of them going into interactive documentation (a line I was trying to explore with Pharo using Grafoscopio). But anytime I tried to use it I stumble upon a stop: > > First time was something related with me having some kind of credential enabled in GitHub to simple use it. I lost a whole morning just enabling that and reporting it. It was related with some mozilla library for font redering that didn't work well at the end. > Today I tried with the prebuild Linux image and Pharo Launcher, but I got an error message about inability to determine proper VM and when I tried installing it from Pharo 7 I got something related with a MemoryFileWriteStream dependency to be resolved before proper installation. > I understand that this is alpha software and demos look amazing, but just running them requires a lot of work that previous GT didn't require. > This brings me this feeling that these jumps in Pharo put core of the user experience at risk (kind of) and you end wondering how much an old tech will be maintained once the jump to the new shinny stuff is done and which is the migration path. > > In my case, I would like to have something like a Zeroconf script that just takes care of the external libraries, VM and image, to have a real glipmse of the upcoming future, beside the Tweets (which look great BTW). Maybe it will happen in a year or two, once it is properly integrated with Pharo, Zeroconf and thought for "end users" of interactive documents, which don't want to enable GitHub stuff, deal with external rendering dependencies and so on. Now the experience of using GT is kind of hostile for that users. > > Anyway, keep the good work and sharing it. Hopefully at some point it will reach the beta status, where users like myself can use it smoothly and build on GT's promises and interesting features. > > Cheers, > > Offray >> On 21/12/18 10:59, Luke Gorrie wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:58, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>> The goal of the new GT is to propose a completely reshaped programming experience that enables moldable development. You will find the concepts from the old GT in the new world as well. For example, the Inspector is extensible in similar ways and the API is similar as well. >> [...] >>> Does this address the concern? >> >> I am not sure yet :). >> >> Programming is not our main use case for GT. We are using GT as an object inspector (etc) for examining diagnostic data. We have a Smalltalk application that's similar to GDB and we are using GT as the front-end. >> >> In our world we use the Inspector and the Spotter but all of the Smalltalk programming views are hidden. GT is "molded" to be a diagnostic tool *instead of* a programming environment. Specifically, our main use case is inspecting/debugging the operation of a JIT compiler written in C. We have Smalltalk code to load binary coredumps from the JIT, decode them using DWARF debug information, and represent the application-level compiler data structures as Smalltalk objects. This way we can use GT to browse generated code, cross-reference profiler data, examine runtime compilation errors, etc. >> >> The "old" GT is awesome for this. I feel like this application is also very much in the spirit of the "moldable tools" thesis. Lots of diagnostic workflows ultimately boil down to drill-down inspecting and/or searching. >> >> I don't know where we stand with respect to the "new" GT though. I am talking about diagnostics, you are talking about programming. I am talking about zeros and ones, you are talking about feelings. I am maintaining a stable application, you are talking about rewrites. I am having a hard time whether I should be switching to the new GT in the immediate future, or waiting another year or two for it to mature, or planning to stick with the old GT. >> >> Hints would be appreciated :) >> >> I reiterate that I think you guys are doing fantastic work - some of the most interesting work in the programming universe to my mind. I hope that this discussion is useful for at least understanding the thought process of some users / potential users. >> >> Cheers! >> -Luke >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch >> https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev

1 0

How can I wrap a byteArray into a stream
by Stephane Ducasse Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

Hi I'm fighting with super badly written code and my first reaction is a to be able to write tests and parametrize the code. I have some byteArray (contents of a CDB database) that I would like to manipulate using stream API. I'm looking for something like this ZnBinaryStream on: aByteArray; next; next; skip: 10; ... Stef

1 2

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Moose-dev] glamorous toolkit: v0.4.0
by Tudor Girba Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

Hi, Thanks for detailing your thoughts. Indeed, I know about your application. Whatever you can do with the current GT you will be able to do with the new one. Except that for the new one you will be able to do extra things. Here are a few: - You can build and share documents that embed those inspector views. This can be useful for reporting or sharing diagnostics with your users. - Because the underlying rendering engine is much more powerful, you can express modern and interfaces that integrate with the rest of the environment smoothly. - You likely have to deal with log files that might get large. First, the new editor allows you to smoothly work with such files. But, you can go well beyond this. Imagine that you build a tooling that produces the same editor only the text is interactive, and you might even embed visual artifacts right in the text to bridge the gap between what you would see in a typical console. For example, this tweet shows the new Transcript used to debug an animation. For every animation frame, we output the text corresponding with the frame and we insert the graphical preview corresponding to that step. You look at GT from the point of view of an end-user. You likely like the fact that you could mold the environment to your context and that you could do this incrementally. It happens that the same principles and tools can be applied to the whole programming, and once you do that, you actually can fundamentally change the act of programming. In fact, the same thing applies to the old GT: we built the new GT using that version and we believe that this allowed us to work much faster than if we would have used more traditional tools. The new GT pushes the envelope significantly further. So, that is why we are excited about that perspective, but even if you do not spend much time programming in Pharo, you can still take advantage for the user point of view as described above :). Is this answer better? Cheers, Doru > On Dec 21, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Luke Gorrie <luke(a)snabb.co> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:58, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > The goal of the new GT is to propose a completely reshaped programming experience that enables moldable development. You will find the concepts from the old GT in the new world as well. For example, the Inspector is extensible in similar ways and the API is similar as well. > [...] > Does this address the concern? > > I am not sure yet :). > > Programming is not our main use case for GT. We are using GT as an object inspector (etc) for examining diagnostic data. We have a Smalltalk application that's similar to GDB and we are using GT as the front-end. > > In our world we use the Inspector and the Spotter but all of the Smalltalk programming views are hidden. GT is "molded" to be a diagnostic tool *instead of* a programming environment. Specifically, our main use case is inspecting/debugging the operation of a JIT compiler written in C. We have Smalltalk code to load binary coredumps from the JIT, decode them using DWARF debug information, and represent the application-level compiler data structures as Smalltalk objects. This way we can use GT to browse generated code, cross-reference profiler data, examine runtime compilation errors, etc. > > The "old" GT is awesome for this. I feel like this application is also very much in the spirit of the "moldable tools" thesis. Lots of diagnostic workflows ultimately boil down to drill-down inspecting and/or searching. > > I don't know where we stand with respect to the "new" GT though. I am talking about diagnostics, you are talking about programming. I am talking about zeros and ones, you are talking about feelings. I am maintaining a stable application, you are talking about rewrites. I am having a hard time whether I should be switching to the new GT in the immediate future, or waiting another year or two for it to mature, or planning to stick with the old GT. > > Hints would be appreciated :) > > I reiterate that I think you guys are doing fantastic work - some of the most interesting work in the programming universe to my mind. I hope that this discussion is useful for at least understanding the thought process of some users / potential users. > > Cheers! > -Luke > > > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)list.inf.unibe.ch > https://www.list.inf.unibe.ch/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.feenk.com "Being happy is a matter of choice."

1 1

[Pharo 7.0] Build #79: 22828-MethodFinder-Enhancement
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #79 was: FAILURE. The Pull Request #2118 was integrated: "22828-MethodFinder-Enhancement" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2118 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22828 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0] Build #78: 22775-Reflectivity-package-is-dirty
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #78 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2117 was integrated: "22775-Reflectivity-package-is-dirty" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2117 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22775 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0] Build #77: Changed references to FileStream standard IO streams to Stdio.
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #77 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #1966 was integrated: "Changed references to FileStream standard IO streams to Stdio." Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/1966 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22653 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0

[Pharo 7.0] Build #76: Fix for issue 22729
by ci-pharo-ci-jenkins2＠inria.fr Dec. 21, 2018

Dec. 21, 2018

There is a new Pharo build available! The status of the build #76 was: SUCCESS. The Pull Request #2045 was integrated: "Fix for issue 22729" Pull request url: https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo/pull/2045 Issue Url: https://pharo.fogbugz.com/f/cases/22729 Build Url: https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-ci-jenkins2/job/Test%20pending%20pull%20request%2…

1 0