- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by Nicolas Cellier

One thing that upset me is the recursive opening of the same view again and again for example when you do something like 'foo' inspect, with the raw view self | 'foo' You must then learn to not click self, what use to this? There should be dead ends, when you can't go any deeper, you can't... 2014-12-26 21:56 GMT+01:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > I have acknowledge the fact that after I mentioned things I missed from > old workspace you were quick to integrate them back to Playground (copy, > paste, implementors, senders etc). You dont understand my premise. My > premise that in the end a tool can only satisfy some people but not all of > them. To deny that is to deny the fabric of our reality. So my belief is > that the answer to the question that Sven asked and I was replying it to > ". So what is best, we all together use and make the best tools, or we all > work with different tools ?" is "both". We as a community help GT tools > evolve with our contributions (certainly I would love to contribute at some > point too) and this is definitely the start of a long term evolution but > also on the other hand individual of groups of pharo coder may create their > own tools to fill the gaps and satisfy needs the existing tools do not . > > Afterall one does not bother to use a fairly unpopular language / IDE that > is easy to hack if he does not intend to at least do some hacking with it. > The ease of building custom IDE tools with Pharo is what makes Pharo so > much fun. > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Kilon, >> >> Your premise is incorrect. Since two months we are gathering feedback and >> actively incorporating it in the tools. Quite some changes happened exactly >> because of this exercise, and they will continue to happen. Tools do get >> redesigned when there are enough arguments. >> >> You do not have to "suck it up". I have no interest in building something >> for my own needs only. I can do that by myself without going through all >> the trouble of asking people. >> >> We need to make explicit what does not work and the design emerges out of >> that. Your points of view matter. Your opinions will not be blindly >> incorporated and the final decision remains with the team that builds these >> tools, but the majority of times the design was agreed by everyone. This >> can work. >> >> I understand that it can be slightly inconvenient at times, but we want >> to get far fast, and for that we need everyone's help at least as feedback. >> If we keep the other tools around, the incentive to fall back on the >> existing habit is too great and feedback does not happen. Please put a bit >> more trust in us and we'll try to live up to your expectations. >> >> Cheers, >> Doru >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Why cant be both ? Why it has to be black and white ? What if we , I, >>> someone does not like the design of a tool at a fundamental level ? >>> >>> If you dont like a tool then you dont like a tool, its not as if the >>> tool itself will be redesigned to fit your own needs . You have two choices >>> a) suck it up and compromise with what you have b) suck it up go through >>> the pain / pleasure of creating your own solution. One thing I learned with >>> coding is that for other codes its usually "use the right tool for the >>> right job" but for me is "the right tools for the right coder". >>> >>> "Personal Preferences" is the name of the game. Plus I disagree that >>> without variation of effort we can have high quality tools. Take a look at >>> the software landscape , there is extremely variation out there, why you >>> think Pharo is immune to that ? >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> > On 26 Dec 2014, at 17:42, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > + 10000 >>>> > >>>> > Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc >>>> I get some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. >>>> > Let people decide!!! >>>> > >>>> > Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! >>>> > I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my >>>> list is huge. >>>> >>>> OK, I understand, but how is this different from any other radical >>>> changes that we did ? >>>> >>>> When we introduced the Eye inspectors we did not offer two options at >>>> the same time (and I can give 10s of examples). So what is best, we all >>>> together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ? >>>> >>>> > Stef >>>> >> Doru, >>>> >> >>>> >> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I >>>> really like the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe >>>> I'll start to build my own inspector on my kind of things. >>>> >> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". >>>> Most of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that >>>> progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and >>>> frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it just >>>> means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal with >>>> my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus and the >>>> new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 and now I'm >>>> back on 3.0. >>>> >> >>>> >> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing >>>> things and give people time to adjust. >>>> >> >>>> >> Norbert >>>> >> >>>> >>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I think there must be a misunderstanding. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but >>>> I think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even >>>> without it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended >>>> the way people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely >>>> different from what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no >>>> problem that people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the >>>> meantime, we can extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various >>>> flavors of browsing objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of >>>> us can tweak it because there is no higher entity that should decide >>>> anymore. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with >>>> working on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to >>>> not be able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I >>>> am still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a >>>> problem of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing >>>> the examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the >>>> inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to >>>> see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not >>>> valuable or just unclear? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic >>>> inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the >>>> Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>> Doru >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>> I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the >>>> old inspector. >>>> >>> I like that people can choose their tools! >>>> >>> I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Stef >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a Ã©crit : >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in >>>> Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I >>>> tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is >>>> really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to >>>> get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. >>>> There is just to much information in this window and too much happening to >>>> me. >>>> >>> To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is >>>> probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this >>>> environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use >>>> the old tools. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Norbert >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> -- >>>> >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>>> >>> >>>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> www.tudorgirba.com >> >> "Every thing has its own flow" >> > >

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fwd: regression of NaN comparison

by Nicolas Cellier

2014-12-26 19:02 GMT+01:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: > Hello, > > It does not happen with the Cog VM nor with older Pharo VM. > > It's a VM bug and it's specific to the Pharo-VM fork. > > Most probably it's because of the float refactoring for Smallfloat some > stuff got incorrectly merged. > > Please consider writing a test for that in FloatTest and make a slice for > Pharo if you have some time. > Thanks Clement, there's already a test that is failing (FloatTest>>testNaNCompare). What I find amazing is that I did not find this failure on the CI server... > > 2014-12-26 18:35 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> >> Date: 2014-12-26 16:52 GMT+01:00 >> Subject: regression of NaN comparison >> To: Pharo Development <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> >> >> >> I downloaded latest Pharo4.0-mac.zip from https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/ >> and I experienced a resurgence of this old bug: >> >> 2<Float nan. >> >> This is not one of the errors reported in the CI server. >> Any clue? >> >> >

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by kilon alios

I have acknowledge the fact that after I mentioned things I missed from old workspace you were quick to integrate them back to Playground (copy, paste, implementors, senders etc). You dont understand my premise. My premise that in the end a tool can only satisfy some people but not all of them. To deny that is to deny the fabric of our reality. So my belief is that the answer to the question that Sven asked and I was replying it to ". So what is best, we all together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ?" is "both". We as a community help GT tools evolve with our contributions (certainly I would love to contribute at some point too) and this is definitely the start of a long term evolution but also on the other hand individual of groups of pharo coder may create their own tools to fill the gaps and satisfy needs the existing tools do not . Afterall one does not bother to use a fairly unpopular language / IDE that is easy to hack if he does not intend to at least do some hacking with it. The ease of building custom IDE tools with Pharo is what makes Pharo so much fun. On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi Kilon, > > Your premise is incorrect. Since two months we are gathering feedback and > actively incorporating it in the tools. Quite some changes happened exactly > because of this exercise, and they will continue to happen. Tools do get > redesigned when there are enough arguments. > > You do not have to "suck it up". I have no interest in building something > for my own needs only. I can do that by myself without going through all > the trouble of asking people. > > We need to make explicit what does not work and the design emerges out of > that. Your points of view matter. Your opinions will not be blindly > incorporated and the final decision remains with the team that builds these > tools, but the majority of times the design was agreed by everyone. This > can work. > > I understand that it can be slightly inconvenient at times, but we want to > get far fast, and for that we need everyone's help at least as feedback. If > we keep the other tools around, the incentive to fall back on the existing > habit is too great and feedback does not happen. Please put a bit more > trust in us and we'll try to live up to your expectations. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Why cant be both ? Why it has to be black and white ? What if we , I, >> someone does not like the design of a tool at a fundamental level ? >> >> If you dont like a tool then you dont like a tool, its not as if the tool >> itself will be redesigned to fit your own needs . You have two choices a) >> suck it up and compromise with what you have b) suck it up go through the >> pain / pleasure of creating your own solution. One thing I learned with >> coding is that for other codes its usually "use the right tool for the >> right job" but for me is "the right tools for the right coder". >> >> "Personal Preferences" is the name of the game. Plus I disagree that >> without variation of effort we can have high quality tools. Take a look at >> the software landscape , there is extremely variation out there, why you >> think Pharo is immune to that ? >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On 26 Dec 2014, at 17:42, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> > >>> > + 10000 >>> > >>> > Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc I >>> get some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. >>> > Let people decide!!! >>> > >>> > Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! >>> > I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my >>> list is huge. >>> >>> OK, I understand, but how is this different from any other radical >>> changes that we did ? >>> >>> When we introduced the Eye inspectors we did not offer two options at >>> the same time (and I can give 10s of examples). So what is best, we all >>> together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ? >>> >>> > Stef >>> >> Doru, >>> >> >>> >> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I really >>> like the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe I'll >>> start to build my own inspector on my kind of things. >>> >> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". >>> Most of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that >>> progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and >>> frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it just >>> means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal with >>> my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus and the >>> new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 and now I'm >>> back on 3.0. >>> >> >>> >> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing >>> things and give people time to adjust. >>> >> >>> >> Norbert >>> >> >>> >>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> I think there must be a misunderstanding. >>> >>> >>> >>> There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but >>> I think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. >>> >>> >>> >>> There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even >>> without it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended >>> the way people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely >>> different from what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no >>> problem that people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the >>> meantime, we can extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various >>> flavors of browsing objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of >>> us can tweak it because there is no higher entity that should decide >>> anymore. >>> >>> >>> >>> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with >>> working on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to >>> not be able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I >>> am still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a >>> problem of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing >>> the examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the >>> inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to >>> see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not >>> valuable or just unclear? >>> >>> >>> >>> But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic >>> inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the >>> Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the >>> old inspector. >>> >>> I like that people can choose their tools! >>> >>> I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. >>> >>> >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a Ã©crit : >>> >>> >>> >>> Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? >>> >>> >>> >>> I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in >>> Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I >>> tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is >>> really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to >>> get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. >>> There is just to much information in this window and too much happening to >>> me. >>> >>> To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is >>> probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this >>> environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use >>> the old tools. >>> >>> >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow" >

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by Tudor Girba

Hi Ben, Users are never guilty. Users are users :). That is why feedback is so important. I certainly like your idea of having tutorials closer to the tools and the context in which it is needed. The problem is that right now we miss a concept in this area. I have some ideas, but they are raw. I would welcome opinions in this direction. I know that Sean played with it, but I think it did not mature yet. Sean? Actually, I would be interested not necessarily in code but in sketches and drawings (not code diagrams :)) of how tutorials could look like. Cheers, Doru On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com> wrote: > >> >> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with working >> on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to not be >> able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I am >> still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a problem >> of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing the >> examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the >> inspector still as a black box tool. >> > > I am guilty :) I try now to think why this is and the word that seems > most appropriate is "inertia". By that I mean, at times previous I think > you've published some tutorials, but I've had too many things on my plate > to check it out - then when it comes to needing something, it takes time to > find the tutorial, so I push on working aroud it. Poor habit maybe.... but > there you go :) > > Alternatively, sometimes I've done a tutorial a long time before I have an > actual need for it, and by the time I need to use it, I've forgotten and > can't find the reference. The best time for a tutorial is when you need to > use it. > > I wonder if there could be a button that linked to a ProfStef type > tutorial that described how to customise it. Perhaps a help button that > flashes once in a new image - just to draw the eye to investigate it. Then > at the time I want/need to do it, its there in the image, with the least > friction to learning what I need to know at the time I need to do it. > > Now sorry I'm on a new computer for the xmas season and I'm having a > problem getting PharoLauncher up an running** to check what I've said > against what is currently shown on the tool. > > > cheers -ben > > **see other thread. > > > I will try to work on a tutorial to see if it gets better, but do you find >> the moldability proposition not valuable or just unclear? >> >> >> -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by Tudor Girba

Hi Norbert, Great. Please play with the extension and let us know how it goes. Cheers, Doru On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > Doru, > > Am 26.12.2014 um 14:38 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > > Hi Norbert, > > My reply is inlined. > > dito > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name> wrote: > >> >> Am 23.12.2014 um 22:46 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >> The Raw view is a tree :) >> >> It looks like shallow tree :) Maybe I miss the point but my appearance to >> this is something like that. Let's have a class >> >> Object subclass: #TTT >> instanceVariableNames: 'col' >> classVariableNames: '' >> category: 'ZZZ' >> >> and >> >> TTT>>#initialize >> col := OrderedCollection new addAll: (1 to: 10); yourself >> >> If I inspect "TTT new" I get >> >> >> With the intention to examine the elements of the collection I unfold (1) >> the col >> >> >> So instead of the elements I get the internal representation of >> OrderedCollection. Clicking array (2) >> >> >> I get a new column with the representation of array (same as on the left >> side). And here Clement is right because it would be helpful to see the >> elements in the right column. By clicking the "10 items" tab (3) and then >> an element (4) I can see the content of that. >> So what I wanted to say is that I found it a lot of clicks necessary to >> get the information I want. I see it is a raw view and from that POV >> everything seems right. >> > > The tree interface works only for a few elements in a collection, but it > will fail for most real collections because it does not scale (you will > have a hard time finding anything). > > Nevertheless, here is a simplistic solution (it will have to be extended a > bit). Adding this method: > > Collection>>gtInspectorVariableValuePairs > | pairs | > pairs := super gtInspectorVariableValuePairs. > self doWithIndex: [ :each :index | > index > 42 ifTrue: [ ^ pairs ]. > pairs add: (index asTwoCharacterString -> each) ]. > ^ pairs > > <collection-items-in-raw.png> > > In my opinion this makes the Raw view less "Raw". > > Sure. I didn't mean to change the raw view because taken its name it is > perfectly doing what it promises. It's just that in most of the cases I'm > not really interested in a raw view but customized views that help > examine/navigating (which is the point of having gt inspector in the first > place, right?). > Thanks for the code snippet. I'll take that as an entry point to play with > it. Would have taken me some time to get that. > > > Coming from the old tools it is not a point of getting used to it or not. >> This raw view is not an improvement over the old it is a completely >> different view. >> > As Ben sad it might good to think about providing a view compatible with >> the old explorer view (fast drill down). Having that view be a default >> could be left to the user as it could be a setting. >> > Does that makes sense? >> > > Your comparison is correct: the current Raw view does provide less than > the old one. However, the raw view used to be the inspector, but now it is > but one of the views in the inspector and it was not meant to replace or > improve the old one. The inspector as a whole does want to improve on the > old one, and I think this is where we should focus our comparisons on :). > Nevertheless, let me know what you think about the extension proposed above. > > But, here is the other thing that the new inspector allows for. In the TTT > class you can now add something like: > > TTT>>gtInspectorItemsIn: composite > <gtInspectorPresentationOrder: 0> > composite list > title: 'Col'; > display: [ col ] > > This is about as cheap as a printOn: and you get: > > <inspector-custom-col.png> > > That's really good. I'm sure I gonna love it soon. > > You might say that you do not want to stop your inspection to do this, but > actually you should not stop. You can write this method directly in the > Meta tab and the inspector updates live and you can continue from where you > left off with a tiny detour. > > Norbert >> >> P.S.: Are the miller columns configurable. I want to play with amount of >> columns. Until now I preferred three columns if space is available. Any >> pointers to that would be great. >> > > There are two things: > 1. There is a setting to set the default amount of panes. > 2. The columns are adjustable dynamically by resizing the scrollbar at the > bottom. > > > Ok, I'll try all of that and then I return to 4.0. Thanks for the help! > > Norbert > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by Tudor Girba

Hi Kilon, Your premise is incorrect. Since two months we are gathering feedback and actively incorporating it in the tools. Quite some changes happened exactly because of this exercise, and they will continue to happen. Tools do get redesigned when there are enough arguments. You do not have to "suck it up". I have no interest in building something for my own needs only. I can do that by myself without going through all the trouble of asking people. We need to make explicit what does not work and the design emerges out of that. Your points of view matter. Your opinions will not be blindly incorporated and the final decision remains with the team that builds these tools, but the majority of times the design was agreed by everyone. This can work. I understand that it can be slightly inconvenient at times, but we want to get far fast, and for that we need everyone's help at least as feedback. If we keep the other tools around, the incentive to fall back on the existing habit is too great and feedback does not happen. Please put a bit more trust in us and we'll try to live up to your expectations. Cheers, Doru On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:40 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why cant be both ? Why it has to be black and white ? What if we , I, > someone does not like the design of a tool at a fundamental level ? > > If you dont like a tool then you dont like a tool, its not as if the tool > itself will be redesigned to fit your own needs . You have two choices a) > suck it up and compromise with what you have b) suck it up go through the > pain / pleasure of creating your own solution. One thing I learned with > coding is that for other codes its usually "use the right tool for the > right job" but for me is "the right tools for the right coder". > > "Personal Preferences" is the name of the game. Plus I disagree that > without variation of effort we can have high quality tools. Take a look at > the software landscape , there is extremely variation out there, why you > think Pharo is immune to that ? > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > >> >> > On 26 Dec 2014, at 17:42, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> > >> > + 10000 >> > >> > Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc I >> get some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. >> > Let people decide!!! >> > >> > Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! >> > I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my >> list is huge. >> >> OK, I understand, but how is this different from any other radical >> changes that we did ? >> >> When we introduced the Eye inspectors we did not offer two options at the >> same time (and I can give 10s of examples). So what is best, we all >> together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ? >> >> > Stef >> >> Doru, >> >> >> >> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I really >> like the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe I'll >> start to build my own inspector on my kind of things. >> >> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". >> Most of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that >> progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and >> frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it just >> means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal with >> my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus and the >> new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 and now I'm >> back on 3.0. >> >> >> >> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing >> things and give people time to adjust. >> >> >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I think there must be a misunderstanding. >> >>> >> >>> There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I >> think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. >> >>> >> >>> There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even >> without it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended >> the way people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely >> different from what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no >> problem that people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the >> meantime, we can extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various >> flavors of browsing objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of >> us can tweak it because there is no higher entity that should decide >> anymore. >> >>> >> >>> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with >> working on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to >> not be able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I >> am still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a >> problem of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing >> the examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the >> inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to >> see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not >> valuable or just unclear? >> >>> >> >>> But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic >> inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the >> Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Doru >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >>> I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the >> old inspector. >> >>> I like that people can choose their tools! >> >>> I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. >> >>> >> >>> Stef >> >>> >> >>> Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a Ã©crit : >> >>> >> >>> Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? >> >>> >> >>> I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in >> Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I >> tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is >> really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to >> get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. >> There is just to much information in this window and too much happening to >> me. >> >>> To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is >> probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this >> environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use >> the old tools. >> >>> >> >>> Norbert >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> www.tudorgirba.com >> >>> >> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by kilon alios

Why cant be both ? Why it has to be black and white ? What if we , I, someone does not like the design of a tool at a fundamental level ? If you dont like a tool then you dont like a tool, its not as if the tool itself will be redesigned to fit your own needs . You have two choices a) suck it up and compromise with what you have b) suck it up go through the pain / pleasure of creating your own solution. One thing I learned with coding is that for other codes its usually "use the right tool for the right job" but for me is "the right tools for the right coder". "Personal Preferences" is the name of the game. Plus I disagree that without variation of effort we can have high quality tools. Take a look at the software landscape , there is extremely variation out there, why you think Pharo is immune to that ? On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > > On 26 Dec 2014, at 17:42, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > + 10000 > > > > Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc I > get some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. > > Let people decide!!! > > > > Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! > > I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my > list is huge. > > OK, I understand, but how is this different from any other radical changes > that we did ? > > When we introduced the Eye inspectors we did not offer two options at the > same time (and I can give 10s of examples). So what is best, we all > together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ? > > > Stef > >> Doru, > >> > >> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I really > like the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe I'll > start to build my own inspector on my kind of things. > >> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". > Most of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that > progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and > frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it just > means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal with > my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus and the > new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 and now I'm > back on 3.0. > >> > >> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing things > and give people time to adjust. > >> > >> Norbert > >> > >>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I think there must be a misunderstanding. > >>> > >>> There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I > think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. > >>> > >>> There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even without > it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended the way > people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely different from > what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no problem that > people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the meantime, we can > extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various flavors of browsing > objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of us can tweak it > because there is no higher entity that should decide anymore. > >>> > >>> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with > working on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to > not be able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I > am still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a > problem of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing > the examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the > inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to > see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not > valuable or just unclear? > >>> > >>> But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic > inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the > Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Doru > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the old > inspector. > >>> I like that people can choose their tools! > >>> I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. > >>> > >>> Stef > >>> > >>> Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a Ã©crit : > >>> > >>> Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? > >>> > >>> I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in > Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I > tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is > really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to > get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. > There is just to much information in this window and too much happening to > me. > >>> To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is > probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this > environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use > the old tools. > >>> > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> www.tudorgirba.com > >>> > >>> "Every thing has its own flow" > >> > > > > >

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by Nicolai Hess

2014-12-26 13:18 GMT+01:00 Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: > Hi, > > I think there must be a misunderstanding. > > There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I > think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. > > There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even without it, > the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended the way > people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely different from > what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no problem that > people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the meantime, we can > extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various flavors of browsing > objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of us can tweak it > because there is no higher entity that should decide anymore. > > What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with working on > a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to not be > able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I am > still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a problem > of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing the > examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the > inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to > see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not > valuable or just unclear? > I think this is pretty clear and we have already many examples on how to extend the inspector (marcus made some great addition for the compiled method view (source code / bytecde / block scope trees) I don't think "inspector as a black box tool" is the problem, eye inspector has this possibility and there were already some "special" views used. But sometimes I just want one tool to inspect or explore an object, without multiple scrolling pages, maybe I am just used to it. > > But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic > inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the > Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Old inspector and explorer

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

> On 26 Dec 2014, at 17:42, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > + 10000 > > Debugging the rendering loops of Athens was such an example. In Bloc I get some race conditions with MC forked process... another fun one. > Let people decide!!! > > Doru I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DO NOT WANT TO LEARN! > I WANT to DECIDE WHEN. I control my agenda and my own schedule and my list is huge. OK, I understand, but how is this different from any other radical changes that we did ? When we introduced the Eye inspectors we did not offer two options at the same time (and I can give 10s of examples). So what is best, we all together use and make the best tools, or we all work with different tools ? > Stef >> Doru, >> >> I think your intention is a good one but slightly misplaced. I really like the idea of GTInspector. It surely is a great tool and maybe I'll start to build my own inspector on my kind of things. >> To me the difference is between "motivated to do" or "forced to do". Most of the time we are trying hard to solve our own problems. If in that progress other problems are forced upon us we get easily distracted and frustrated. The same goes for new tools. If I'm forced to use these it just means I have to deal with it first and only then I'm allowed to deal with my own problem. As it was in that special case the bug in nautilus and the new inspector made me shy away from developing something in 4.0 and now I'm back on 3.0. >> >> So I think the only possibility is to "offer" a new way of doing things and give people time to adjust. >> >> Norbert >> >>> Am 26.12.2014 um 13:18 schrieb Tudor Girba <tudor(a)tudorgirba.com>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think there must be a misunderstanding. >>> >>> There can be a good reason for having a basic inspector around, but I think the reason is not because people cannot choose what to use. >>> >>> There is a toggle to enable/disable the GTInspector. But, even without it, the main feature of the GTInspector is exactly to be extended the way people want and not impose a fixed way. This is completely different from what existed before. In fact, half a year ago there was no problem that people could neither choose nor extend anything. In the meantime, we can extend our workflows significantly. Adding the various flavors of browsing objects is perhaps a couple of lines long and each of us can tweak it because there is no higher entity that should decide anymore. >>> >>> What I cannot quite grasp is that while we pride ourselves with working on a reflective language, when we have reflective tools, we seem to not be able to take half an hour to build the tool that fits our needs. I am still wondering what is needed to improve this. I think that it's a problem of exercise or of communication, but it seems that just providing the examples that I linked before is not enough and most people look at the inspector still as a black box tool. I will try to work on a tutorial to see if it gets better, but do you find the moldability proposition not valuable or just unclear? >>> >>> But, as I said, there can still be a valid reason to enable a basic inspector that relies on a minimal of libraries (so, definitely not the Spec one) for the same reason we have an emergency debugger. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Doru >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 11:43 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> I will add basicInspect in Object so that we can get access to the old inspector. >>> I like that people can choose their tools! >>> I mentioned that 20 times but people do not care apparently. >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> Le 23/12/14 11:50, Norbert Hartl a Ã©crit : >>> >>> Is there a way to get the old tools via shortcut? >>> >>> I started something new with pharo 4.0 today. I discovered a bug in Nautilus where every rename or deletion of a method raises a debugger. I tried finding the bug but struggled because to me the new inspector is really confusing. If I "just" want to unfold a few levels of references to get a glimpse of the structure the new tool prevents me from doing that. There is just to much information in this window and too much happening to me. >>> To me it looks like a power tool you need to get used to. So it is probably not the best tool for simple tasks and people new to this environment might be overwhelmed. At least I would like to be able to use the old tools. >>> >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> www.tudorgirba.com >>> >>> "Every thing has its own flow" >> >

Dec. 26, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Fwd: regression of NaN comparison

by ClÃ©ment Bera

Hello, It does not happen with the Cog VM nor with older Pharo VM. It's a VM bug and it's specific to the Pharo-VM fork. Most probably it's because of the float refactoring for Smallfloat some stuff got incorrectly merged. Please consider writing a test for that in FloatTest and make a slice for Pharo if you have some time. 2014-12-26 18:35 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com> > Date: 2014-12-26 16:52 GMT+01:00 > Subject: regression of NaN comparison > To: Pharo Development <Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr> > > > I downloaded latest Pharo4.0-mac.zip from https://ci.inria.fr/pharo/ > and I experienced a resurgence of this old bug: > > 2<Float nan. > > This is not one of the errors reported in the CI server. > Any clue? > >

Dec. 26, 2014