- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo5] All systems on go!

by Sean P. DeNigris

Thanks, Marcus!! :) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Pharo5-All-systems-on-go-tp4820956p4821002.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by Sean P. DeNigris

Nicolas Anquetil wrote > I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual > interface after such a very long period (in computer science time > frame), it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the > choice that had most advantages ... By this rationale, we should all stop programming Smalltalk immediately in favor of COBOL ;) ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4821001.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [ANN] ArchLinux pharo-vm / pharo-launcher packages

by Sean P. DeNigris

laurent laffont wrote > it seems the Archlinux team does not have access to > pharo-archlinux repository Fixed. ----- Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/ANN-ArchLinux-pharo-vm-pharo-launcher-packages-tp4749… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by kilon alios

"I'm against GUIs for distributed version control for collaborating on documentation. " yes this is a valid concern this is why I also agree with what others have said of a GUI toll that helps us write documentation but it exports it to pillar so we can use easily version control with it. Or maybe you mean you are not satisfied with how git gui clients have been doing their job ? "GUI Zealot yes, mouse Zealot definitely not." Yeap I agree with this very much, I am using a 3d application, Blender and as you can imagine relying on mouse is basically unthinkable because of how extremely complex the UI is. I use mouse for editing polygons, I use a wacom tablet for sculpting and I use keyboard shorcuts for ton of other blender actions. 3d apps have ton of shortcuts out of necessity. But there is a solution recently in the form of pie penus, those menus work on premise of leaving an open circle area for displaying what you operate on and open around it icon based menus in circular layout. You can enter those menus using mouse gestures (you can also optionally do it the traditional way of clicking on the menus), that makes for very fast interaction as fast as using key shortcuts. You can this way create mouse gesture combos to do very complex actions and at the same time you have a visual feedback of what you doing exactly something that shortcus lack. Those mouse gestures dont require any clicking. I think pie menus would work great for Pharo. So there is a lot of room for UI ideas still and GUIs are still in an infant state. Another idea I had recently it using a multi touch device like smartphone or table as an interface used for operating Blender and Pharo, something like a TV remote . This usage is popular with musicians for controlling musical software.

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] [Pharo-users] [ANN] ArchLinux pharo-vm / pharo-launcher packages

by Laurent

Le mar. 21 avril 2015 Ã 1:46, Sean P. DeNigris <sean(a)clipperadams.com> a Ã©crit : > laurent laffont wrote >>>> Feel free to create it and give me access I will use this new >>>> project as main repo. > > https://github.com/pharo-project/pharo-archlinux > I sent you an invitation... Thanks Sean. But it seems the Archlinux team does not have access to pharo-archlinux repository Laurent > > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/ANN-ArchLinux-pharo-vm-pharo-launcher-packages-tp4749… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by Dmitri Zagidulin

And just to be clear, I am not against GUIs, specifically. I'm against GUIs for distributed version control for collaborating on documentation. And only because I haven't seen it done in a usable fashion (again, see Revision Control in Word or Google Docs). I'm always willing to be proven wrong on that count, if some amazing tech comes along. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 3:48 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Its funny you mention natural selection an extremely stupid and slow > process. Fortunately for us software evolves with artificial selection > which way faster and way more intelligent. But still it comes with a great > deal of flaws when you take a look at what exactly is popular in the coding > world nowdays . Or even outside the coding world. But yes we can sit here > and debate this for million of years. > > I am not a GUI zealot though, I have my own opinion that I never try to > enforce on others. I am perfectly ok with people that prefer a text based > approach. The only thing I am saying that GUIs have one undisputed > advantage, they are not text based only ;) > > For me it comes down to making sensible convenient and practical useful > UIs. How you do it , graphical or text based is secondary concern. > > I am also aware of the fact that GUIs tend to be more difficult to create, > which provides a very good explanation why command lines are still quite > popular. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil < > nicolas.anquetil(a)inria.fr> wrote: > >> >> This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup >> >> - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and >> the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on >> earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface >> >> - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to >> perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some >> minutes of work >> He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was >> so very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but >> had some scripts to do it. >> >> So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons >> to prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. >> And you don't even have to look very far to find some. >> >> As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around >> for decades. >> I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual >> interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), >> it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that >> had most advantages ... >> >> nicolas >> >> PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless >> >> >> On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: >> >> Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical >> approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming >> languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot >> fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and >> "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or >> not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. >> >> Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the >> people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep >> into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. >> But I welcome any contribution. >> >> As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to >> the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . >> Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. >> Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but >> I guess they have their reasons. >> >> I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then >> when GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of >> graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based >> approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about >> Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. >> >> I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the >> end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >>> sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in >>>> various >>>> forms of assembly code. >>> >>> >>> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >>> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >>> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >>> approaches, feature-for-feature. >>> >>> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >>> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >>> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >>> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >>> about after all.) >>> >>> >> >> >> >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by kilon alios

Its funny you mention natural selection an extremely stupid and slow process. Fortunately for us software evolves with artificial selection which way faster and way more intelligent. But still it comes with a great deal of flaws when you take a look at what exactly is popular in the coding world nowdays . Or even outside the coding world. But yes we can sit here and debate this for million of years. I am not a GUI zealot though, I have my own opinion that I never try to enforce on others. I am perfectly ok with people that prefer a text based approach. The only thing I am saying that GUIs have one undisputed advantage, they are not text based only ;) For me it comes down to making sensible convenient and practical useful UIs. How you do it , graphical or text based is secondary concern. I am also aware of the fact that GUIs tend to be more difficult to create, which provides a very good explanation why command lines are still quite popular. On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup > > - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and > the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on > earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface > > - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to > perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some > minutes of work > He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was so > very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but > had some scripts to do it. > > So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons to > prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. > And you don't even have to look very far to find some. > > As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around > for decades. > I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual > interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), > it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that > had most advantages ... > > nicolas > > PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless > > > On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: > > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical > approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming > languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot > fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and > "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or > not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the > people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep > into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. > But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to > the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . > Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. > Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but > I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when > GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of > graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based > approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about > Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the > end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >> sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>> >>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >>> forms of assembly code. >> >> >> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >> approaches, feature-for-feature. >> >> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >> about after all.) >> >> > > >

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by nacho

I think we have to distinguish two things. One thing is GUI only with mouse. Another one is GUI with lots of keyboard shortcuts and bindings. For instance. I use a lot of Excel which clearly is a GUI app but I seldom use the mouse it is much productive for me to use shortcuts. An analogy can be made between Python an Pharo. Python is great, but one of the things that really annoys me is that all the methods, clases are there in a way which is difficult to grasp them. On the other hand, the System Browser is a wonderful thing for an OO language. GUI Zealot yes, mouse Zealot definitely not. Cheers Nacho *Lic. Ignacio Sniechowski, MBA* *Prosavic SRL* *Tel: (011) 4542-6714* On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:35 PM, kilon.alios [via Smalltalk] < ml-node+s1294792n4820989h52(a)n4.nabble.com> wrote: > Its funny you mention natural selection an extremely stupid and slow > process. Fortunately for us software evolves with artificial selection > which way faster and way more intelligent. But still it comes with a great > deal of flaws when you take a look at what exactly is popular in the coding > world nowdays . Or even outside the coding world. But yes we can sit here > and debate this for million of years. > > I am not a GUI zealot though, I have my own opinion that I never try to > enforce on others. I am perfectly ok with people that prefer a text based > approach. The only thing I am saying that GUIs have one undisputed > advantage, they are not text based only ;) > > For me it comes down to making sensible convenient and practical useful > UIs. How you do it , graphical or text based is secondary concern. > > I am also aware of the fact that GUIs tend to be more difficult to create, > which provides a very good explanation why command lines are still quite > popular. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <[hidden email] > <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820989&i=0>> wrote: > >> >> This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup >> >> - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and >> the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on >> earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface >> >> - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to >> perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some >> minutes of work >> He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was >> so very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but >> had some scripts to do it. >> >> So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons >> to prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. >> And you don't even have to look very far to find some. >> >> As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around >> for decades. >> I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual >> interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), >> it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that >> had most advantages ... >> >> nicolas >> >> PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless >> >> >> On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: >> >> Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical >> approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming >> languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot >> fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and >> "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or >> not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. >> >> Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the >> people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep >> into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. >> But I welcome any contribution. >> >> As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to >> the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . >> Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. >> Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but >> I guess they have their reasons. >> >> I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then >> when GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of >> graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based >> approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about >> Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. >> >> I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the >> end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <[hidden email] >> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820989&i=1>> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[hidden email] >>> <http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4820989&i=2>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in >>>> various >>>> forms of assembly code. >>> >>> >>> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >>> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >>> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >>> approaches, feature-for-feature. >>> >>> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >>> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >>> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >>> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >>> about after all.) >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion > below: > > http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4820989.h… > To start a new topic under Pharo Smalltalk Developers, email > ml-node+s1294792n1294837h40(a)n4.nabble.com > To unsubscribe from Pharo Smalltalk Developers, click here > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&no…> > . > NAML > <http://forum.world.st/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instan…> > ----- Nacho Smalltalker apprentice. Buenos Aires, Argentina. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Improving-the-documentation-model-tp4820814p4820991.h… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Interrupt a locked pharo image from outside

by Thierry Goubier

Le 21/04/2015 18:04, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : > Thierry Goubier wrote >> OSProcess 4.5.13 has a tendancy to lock the image on some linux systems > > Total shot in the dark, but IIRC setting PipeableOSProcess output to non > blocking fixes many lockup scenarios I believe downgrading OSProcess to 4.5.11 is making PipeableOSProcess use blocking I/O :) and it solves the lockup. Thierry

April 21, 2015

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving the documentation model

by phil＠highoctane.be

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Nicolas Anquetil <nicolas.anquetil(a)inria.fr > wrote: > > This remind me of a discussion a very long time ago on a newsgroup > > - a young zealot of GUI (windows, buttons, mouses) was asking himself and > the community how people could deny that this was the best interface on > earth or how anybody could prefer text based interface > > - a seasonned sys. admin then started to explain all the clicks he had to > perform to create one new user account. Result: for one new user some > minutes of work > He then added that he had to create HUMDREDS of user every year and was so > very happy that he did not had to do it all by pointing and clicking but > had some scripts to do it. > > So the answer to all this is that there are very good and valid reasons to > prefer text to all the shiny interfaces of he world. > And you don't even have to look very far to find some. > > As for programming with in a graphical way, the ability has been around > for decades. > I believe we can safely assume that if people are still using textual > interface after such a very long period (in computer science time frame), > it is most certainly because natural selection has favoured the choice that > had most advantages ... > Coral, where are you? > > nicolas > > PS: which does not mean that GUI are completely useless > > On 21/04/2015 20:03, kilon alios wrote: > > Funnily enough I am in the exact opposite opinion, of Graphical > approach being vastly superior to text based approach including programming > languages. 25 years using computers and coding with them and still cannot > fathom why programming languages are still a think and why developers and > "power" users rely so much on text based approach. But whether I like it or > not the coding world is dominated by text based solutions. > > Its a pointless debate though when it comes to pharo will depend on the > people doing the work. Personally I don't have the time of going very deep > into this and doing all the hard work it requires. My focus is elsewhere. > But I welcome any contribution. > > As a lawyer myself and a coder, I cannot even begin to compare Latex to > the convenience of Libreoffice I use at work. Its not even a debate . > Latex is something I never heard of until Pillar introduced me to it. > Can't imagine who in the right mind would use this to document things, but > I guess they have their reasons. > > I started with command line and CP/M back in 1988 but even back then when > GUIs were not mainstream (at least in my country) I was dreaming of > graphical intefaces that would lift me from the restrictions of text based > approach and the dreaded command line. I wish I had found out about > Smalltalk back then and its elegant solution to this problem. > > I love Pillar because its simple and I like the syntax, but yeah in the > end I would choose a Graphical Documentation Tool no questions asked. > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Dmitri Zagidulin <dmitri(a)zagidulin.net> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Sean P. DeNigris < >> sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >>> >>> I dream that all documents in my Dynabook are WYSIWYG. However, the >>> computing world seems to have regressed into writing documents in various >>> forms of assembly code. >> >> >> Completely disagree, that it's a regression in any way :) Text-based >> document writing has enabled so many more features than WYSIWYG approaches >> have ever dreamed of. I would be happy to debate the merits of the two >> approaches, feature-for-feature. >> >> You're basically pining for the equivalent of VisualBasic drag & drop >> programming, versus the flexibility of writing code in an editor. The >> latter wins, no contest. (Now, that is not to say that text-based code >> editing can't be /improved/ with better IDE tools, that's what we're all >> about after all.) >> >> > > >

April 21, 2015