- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by Nicolas Cellier

2014-06-19 22:21 GMT+02:00 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu>: > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not > really simple. > > > > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience. > Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo / > Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts associated > with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I don't care > about languages that theoretically are great. > > > > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe > because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am > not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like > an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. > But I don't stop learning . > > > > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more difficult > to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on Smalltalk > seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference documentation and > I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading code is very very > very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read code, additionally I > don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no comments. > > Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. > > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html > > First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the creative > spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >> > > Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any > kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a > pretty low level - that is really amazing. > > Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a key > skill. > > Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or written > in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything documented. > And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. > > But we are moving forward in the right direction. > > Yep, I forgot that I learned with Smalltalk/V and st80... I think I had read all the code base after two or three years, blue book included. Learning with Squeak/Pharo certainly put the hurdle a bit high... I don't think I will ever read the whole... I'd say maybe try and teach with Cuis? > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks > nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I > know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the > syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to > read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate > reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see > how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless > he does not real understand what he learned. > > > > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and the > Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at #emacs in > IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full blown > language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" , "No > its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is history. > > > > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language > I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of > documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think > however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and > me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and > directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in > this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing > is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest > way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero > delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I > would be around as long as it follows them. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met > it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many > problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and > Smalltalk had them all. > > > > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I > see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) > Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's > how it is. > > > > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says > "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is > hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's > message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) > > > > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on > few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), > has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). > Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet > it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day > by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity > anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that > anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be > uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not > embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can > admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) > > > > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. > simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be > easily googled if need be. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > > > > > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: > > > > Simple ~= Easy. > > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy > (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). > > > > > > > > Intersting... > > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would > have thought the exact contrary... > > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? > > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler > than Smalltalk? > > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is > less than difference to Smalltalk? > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > > > > > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake > oil marketing" to me. > > > > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other > programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be > further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo > is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have > to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that > Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you > need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will > be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say > python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this > simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may > come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, > but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. > > > > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and > demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly > better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will > benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> > wrote: > > Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly > braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: > > > > exampleWithNumber: x > > | y | > > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. > > y := self size + super size. > > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) > > do: [ :each | > > Transcript show: (each class name); > > show: ' ']. > > ^x < y > > > > > > > > Uko > > > > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph > Johnson. > >> > >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard > >> > >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. > >> > >> Oscar > >> > >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf > >>> > >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. > It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers > and also as some king of souvenir. > >>> > >>> Uko > >>> > >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > >>> > >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real > postcard. > >>>> > >>>> Stef > >>>> > >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: > >>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>> > >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was > there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really > interesting. > >>>>> > >>>>> Uko > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] vm over android

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Hi Kilon, 2014-06-19 16:17 GMT-03:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > And not to sound out of topic VM on Android is the single most important > thing for the future of Pharo. Mobile market wont become smaller it will > become much larger. Because smartphones are really lately that have turned > into a full blow computers and people slowly realize it. I disagree here. As an example, Android is switching its JIT runtime for an AOT one, because with JIT the performance (mostly related with UI perception) is slower than its iOS counterpart even when running on better hardware. Most of the popular apps use native multithreading intensively to maximize responsiveness. Pharo (as an organization) can't compete with that level of optimization, it doesn't have the budget for it. > How long before > most of those people realize that they dont need their desktop ? Software > migrates/ported constantly. Most people already realized that. But, IMO, the trend is not to move to mobile devices, but to cloud as a platform, or more exactly as a concept of always available and ubiquitous. Mobile is an enabler of ubiquity, it's not the end platform, and the cambric explosion of devices is a proof of that (phones, tablets, tvs, wearables, cars, who knows what...). Checkout a few "cloud based IDEs" to see what you can do today with those (eg: https://c9.io/ , https://codenvy.com/) Amber's Helios IDE is something that could enable that, backed by Pharo. > I definetly would love to have Pharo on my Nexus 4 one day and run smoothly. > I know its a lot of work, I don't expect it to happen any time soon, but > when the time will come my mobile phone will be "Pharo Powered" ;) Do you really want to have Pharo (for development) in a 5" screen? Or even in a 10" tablet? Have you tried using it? I did, and played around for a while. It was impressive that it ran bit identically. But that's all. Today's Pharo UI isn't close to be "mobile ready", in terms of UI design, architecture and by consequence performance. I don't find this a problem at all... unless you want to target mobile platforms. I mean... no one complains node.js doesn't have a good UI, and if there are some, it isn't their main strength. I'm not aware of a trend to have IntelliJ/Eclipse and/or XCode running on mobile devices, even when there is less "technology impedance" between their programming language and the supporting platform. Having all that said, I see use for Pharo in the mobile, in internet of things as mentioned earlier, for intensive custom UI apps and for games, where there is no expectation of "a native UI". Another handy usage would be to use it's "self containment" as an advantage to have a portable server stack or similar (assuming there is no dependency to local databases, etc.). And that's why when somebody says they're working on a VM for a mobile platform I ask "what for?", because I'd love to be proved wrong and learn about an unseen use case that could give us, Pharoers and Smalltalkers in general, an advantage. Regards,

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 19 Jun 2014, at 21:01, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not really simple. > > So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience. Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo / Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts associated with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I don't care about languages that theoretically are great. > > I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. But I don't stop learning . > > In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more difficult to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on Smalltalk seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference documentation and I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading code is very very very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read code, additionally I don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no comments. Reading well written code is an important way to make progress, IMHO. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/smalltalk.html First principle: << Personal Mastery: If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual. >> Even though Linux is open-source I bet most of us have never read any kernel or system code. In Pharo, everything is easily accessible to a pretty low level - that is really amazing. Using senders, implementers and references to find what you want is a key skill. Of course, not every part of the system is as good an example, or written in such a way that it is easily understood - nor is everything documented. And granted, often it can be hard to get an overview. But we are moving forward in the right direction. > The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless he does not real understand what he learned. > > I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and the Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at #emacs in IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full blown language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" , "No its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is history. > > I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I would be around as long as it follows them. > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and Smalltalk had them all. > > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's how it is. > > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) > > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) > > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be easily googled if need be. > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > > > > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: > > Simple ~= Easy. > Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). > > > > Intersting... > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would have thought the exact contrary... > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler than Smalltalk? > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is less than difference to Smalltalk? > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > > 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake oil marketing" to me. > > It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. > > Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: > > exampleWithNumber: x > | y | > true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. > y := self size + super size. > #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) > do: [ :each | > Transcript show: (each class name); > show: ' ']. > ^x < y > > > > Uko > > On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph Johnson. >> >> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >> >> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >> >> Oscar >> >> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >>> >>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers and also as some king of souvenir. >>> >>> Uko >>> >>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real postcard. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Uko >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] How to convert properyl an Athens Surface to a Form

by Nicolai Hess

I use asForm and it works for me. can you create a screenshot with the odd result it creates. 2014-06-19 21:58 GMT+02:00 Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire.fernandes(a)gmail.com>: > Hi, > I can't find it. #asForm message produce odd result for me. > > Hilaire > > >

June 19, 2014

How to convert properyl an Athens Surface to a Form

by Hilaire Fernandes

Hi, I can't find it. #asForm message produce odd result for me. Hilaire

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] [ANN] Base62/Base36

by Esteban A. Maringolo

Cool! It is a nice companion to my 8 byte "pretty much unique" generator [1], and could be integrated in my friendly URLs :). However, I couldn't prove the case insensitivity of Base36, the #toNumber: ignores characters not present in the Characters array. I fixed Base36 toNumber: but broke Base62 tests :) self assert: (Base36 toNumber: (Base36 fromNumber: 16) asUppercase) will fail. Regards, -- Esteban. [1] https://gist.github.com/eMaringolo/be973dcf03b0783711f1 Esteban A. Maringolo 2014-06-12 8:16 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > Hmm *cough* > > http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~NorbertHartl/Base62 > > > Norbert > > Am 12.06.2014 um 13:12 schrieb Norbert Hartl <norbert(a)hartl.name>: > > Just for the record. Iâve uploaded a package to smalltalkhub that contains > util classes to en-/decode values into/from Base62/Base36. > > Base62/Base36 encode numbers in short strings. These are used e.g. by url > shortener services from google, bit.ly etc. > > Base36 uses lowercase letters and numbers to encode, Base62 uses all > characters from Base36 plus all uppercase letters. Base62 produces smaller > strings while Base36 produces case insensitive ones. > > Example: > > Base62 fromNumber: 100000 -> 'q0Uâ > > Base36 fromNumber: 100000 -> â255s' > > FYI, > > Norbert > > >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Improving Pharo By Example

by kilon alios

Yes I have not been doing that because I was lazy and struggling with the Pier syntax, but now I have learned good enough I will do it the way you say from now on. On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:39 PM, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> ok I leave it to your capable hands and I will try to position images at >> the start of the page , though that is easier said than done :D >> > > > no! Don't do anything like that. LaTeX is capable of doing it by itself. > You don't know where the page boundaries will be so it is hopeless for you > :-). What you must ensure though, is that all figures are properly > referenced in the text. This is a good example: > > ... bla... bla... see Figure *fig:myfig*. > > This is a bad example: > > ... bla... bla... see figure below: > > This is bad because you can't be sure the figure will be below (it can > also be above, LaTeX decides). > > > >> In any case chapters need proof reading so what I commit should never >> consider "the final version". But I always try to produce as much quality >> as I can. >> > > > No problem. > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing > enthusiasm." > Winston Churchill >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] vm over android

by kilon alios

I got an iPhone for my father recently and he was blown away by the capabilities of the device I was describing him. Then I was surprised by the fact he was surprised. Then I took a step back and tried to be in his place. Then I was blown away too. Here is this 70 year old man, he is used to mobile phones which are basically phones that call other mobile phones and ..... well... thats it! Compared to an iPhone which is thousands times more powerful than my first computer. He told me to get him the adaptor for TV, so he can see things from his iPhone to his TV (watch football matches and youtube videos). I had already done a search and I found plenty of keyboards and mouses for iPhone. It makes you sit back and ask "Mr Desktop / Laptop .... why we need you ?" For me it makes sense to have a desktop or a laptop because I do 3d graphics and I need the power of a powerful desktop GPU which can run circles around any GPU used for smartphones and tablets. So desktop/laptop is a mandatory. But I am the exception , I am "the freak". If computational power is not an issues, which is not for the vast majority of users out there. The size of the screen is not an issue because you can connect it to any modern screen and TV you want, the lack of keyboard is not because you can connect an external keyboard and lack of mouse is not because you can connect a mouse as well. And not to sound out of topic VM on Android is the single most important thing for the future of Pharo. Mobile market wont become smaller it will become much larger. Because smartphones are really lately that have turned into a full blow computers and people slowly realize it. How long before most of those people realize that they dont need their desktop ? Software migrates/ported constantly. I definetly would love to have Pharo on my Nexus 4 one day and run smoothly. I know its a lot of work, I don't expect it to happen any time soon, but when the time will come my mobile phone will be "Pharo Powered" ;) On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > A good place to run Pharo for IoT would be on an ARM-based Synology box. > > That would be a killer niche. > > Phil > > > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Esteban A. Maringolo < > emaringolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Clement, >> >> 2014-06-19 12:52 GMT-03:00 ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com>: >> > 2014-06-18 15:39 GMT+02:00 Esteban A. Maringolo <emaringolo(a)gmail.com>: >> >> >> Can you share what is the intended use of the android vm that you're >> >> building? >> >> > - Deploying application on Android >> > - Proving to big customers Pharo can run on ARM processor on the >> contrary to >> > several other smalltalks >> >> What kind of applications? Is there an business interest of running on >> ARM processors? Is there a sale advantage of having this? I don't want >> to sound too inquisitive nor pedantic, those are real questions. >> >> As stated in previous mails, running on the platform is a technical >> challenge per se (I couldn't make it if I wanted), but it's just a >> very small part of "deploying to Android". And I'm not talking about >> app stores. >> >> Even though Android (AOSP) is Linux based, the memory/battery >> constraints makes that apps or services lifecycle completely >> different to regular unix processes. And I don't see how this fits >> into the whole android environment. Last time I tried (+1yr) it the VM >> was a permanent process, without access to device sensors, etc.[*] >> >> I have a genuine interest in this topic, because my company depends >> both on Pharo and Android (native) software. >> >> But how I see this, the advantage of Pharo running on Android for >> devices other than phones/tablets, more kind of "internet of things" >> devices. The advantage is also that the image is an asset of the vm, >> so you can update your app without having to reinstall it through the >> platform app management. >> >> Please don't let this stop you guys from doing this VM even for the >> fun/sake of doing it. >> But as you are making this public, I feel allowed to ask questions and >> add comments. You can simply ignore them. :) >> >> Regards, >> >> Esteban A. Maringolo >> >> [*] Several years ago I took a private course of "mobile squeak", and >> even compiled a modified squeak VM for WinCE, running MVC based UIs. >> Back then Squeak UI was way better than WinCE's, even for "business >> apps". Now I think mobile expectations changed. >> >> >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by kilon alios

I don't see how something that is simple cannot be easy unless its not really simple. So far I have not found Pharo simpler to Python. As a coding experience. Maybe if I stay around 10 year I will. I know there are things that Pharo / Smalltalk does better than Python like closure , or concepts associated with functional programming etc. But in the end of the day I don't care about languages that theoretically are great. I have not yet seen great gains in the language while I code, maybe because in the end of the day I just code in a very simplistic way, I am not a pro coder, I don't have the experience to use complex concepts like an experienced coder would do. I know a few things and that is what I use. But I don't stop learning . In the end of the day yes I find Smalltalk and Pharo much more difficult to Python because of the lack of documentation. Even books on Smalltalk seem to be decades old. Pharo has zero official reference documentation and I don't , like many others , like to read code , reading code is very very very slow. Did I just said that I don't like to read code, additionally I don't like to read code. I hate reading code with no comments. The syntax however is very simple. I also love that the syntax looks nothing like C, even though the vast majority of languages I know and I know most of the popular ones are C based. I never had a problem with the syntax. So I would say that Pharo is by far the type of language I love to read, if we exclude the fact that I don't like to read code and I hate reading uncommented code. So I cannot relate to your students, I don't see how anyone can see Smalltalk as complex at least on a syntax level unless he does not real understand what he learned. I am here however because I have fallen in love with live coding and the Smalltalk IDE. I was blown away with emacs but one day I asked at #emacs in IRC "hey guys would not be awesome if emacs had GUIs and a full blown language" and the answer I got " try Squeak " , "Oh its a lisp thing" , "No its smalltalk", "what on earth is smalltalk ?" and the rest is history. I would say that language-wise Smalltalk is by far the easiest language I have learned. But as a coding experience is hard because of lack of documentation, lack of good documentation and lack of libraries. I think however Pharo deserves to be loads more popular, its a very good effort and me and Pharo seem to have the same goals in terms of coding. "Elegance and directness". I don't care so much about "simplicity" because nothing in this world is really simple, not "ease of use" because nothing worth doing is easy to do. For me "elegance" is doing "the complex thing the simplest way possible without compromising" and "directness" means "do it now, zero delays, zero excuses". It seems to me Pharo is build on these ideals and I would be around as long as it follows them. On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met it > many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many > problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and > Smalltalk had them all. > > But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I see > that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) Smalltalk > is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's how it is. > > And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says > "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is > hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's > message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) > > What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on > few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), > has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). > Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet > it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day > by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity > anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that > anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be > uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not > embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can > admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) > > I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. > simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be > easily googled if need be. > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > Dennis Schetinin > > > 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < > nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > >> >> >> 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: >> >> Simple ~= Easy. >>> Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy >>> (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). >>> >>> >>> Intersting... >> I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would >> have thought the exact contrary... >> What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? >> Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler than >> Smalltalk? >> Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is >> less than difference to Smalltalk? >> >> >>> -- >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Dennis Schetinin >>> >>> >>> 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>>> personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake >>>> oil marketing" to me. >>>> >>>> It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other >>>> programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be >>>> further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo >>>> is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have >>>> to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that >>>> Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you >>>> need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will >>>> be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say >>>> python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this >>>> simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may >>>> come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, >>>> but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. >>>> >>>> Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and >>>> demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly >>>> better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will >>>> benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly >>>>> braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: >>>>> >>>>> exampleWithNumber: x >>>>> | y | >>>>> true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. >>>>> y := self size + super size. >>>>> #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) >>>>> do: [ :each | >>>>> Transcript show: (each class name); >>>>> show: ' ']. >>>>> ^x < y >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Uko >>>>> >>>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph >>>>> Johnson. >>>>> >>>>> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >>>>> >>>>> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >>>>> >>>>> Oscar >>>>> >>>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >>>>> >>>>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. >>>>> It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers >>>>> and also as some king of souvenir. >>>>> >>>>> Uko >>>>> >>>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real >>>>> postcard. >>>>> >>>>> Stef >>>>> >>>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi guys, >>>>> >>>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was >>>>> there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really >>>>> interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Uko >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >

June 19, 2014

Re: [Pharo-dev] Where is the postcard with syntax?

by Dennis Schetinin

As for me, Smalltalk was both really simple and easy at the time I met it many years ago. Maybe that's because I have been experiencing so many problems on the "C++" way and have been looking for solutionsâ¦ and Smalltalk had them all. But I have been teaching smalltalk for almost ten years by now, and I see that for the most of students (I would say for 90 â 95% of them) Smalltalk is not easy. I don't know why. I wonder why, actually. But that's how it is. And those who don't understand, who don't "feel" Smalltalk always says "it's too complex". You see, they confuse "it is complex" with "it is hard". And I think I saw exactly the same thing in that Kilon Alios's message. That's why I haven't manage not to answer :) What I wanted to say is that Smalltalk is really simple: it is based on few essential (and very human) ideas (there could be even fewer though), has a minimalistic syntax (could have even less syntax though I think). Other languages are much more complex. I don't know Python well, but I bet it's much more complex than Smalltalk. But when you do complex things day by day, for many yearsâ¦ they become easier. You just don't feel complexity anymore. It's still there, and it still hindersâ¦ but you don't see that anymore. And by now, any other, even much more simpler tool will be uncomfortable, strangeâ¦ and hard. I think that's why most students do not embrace Smalltalk: it's different, it's unusual, it's strangeâ¦ so I can admit: it's not easy. But please do not say it's complex! :) I believe these thoughts were inspired by some articles on "easy vs. simple", "simple is objective while easy is subjective" etc. â¦They can be easily googled if need be. -- Best regards, Dennis Schetinin 2014-06-19 21:01 GMT+04:00 Nicolas Cellier < nicolas.cellier.aka.nice(a)gmail.com>: > > > > 2014-06-19 16:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis Schetinin <chaetal(a)gmail.com>: > > Simple ~= Easy. >> Smalltalk is simple (simpler then most of other PLs), but it's not easy >> (to understand and master, especially after other PLs). >> >> >> Intersting... > I'm certainly too biased after all these years of Smalltalk, but I would > have thought the exact contrary... > What exactly isn't easy in Smalltalk versus other PL? > Is understanding and mastering C++, lisp, haskell, whatever, simpler than > Smalltalk? > Or do you only mean that difference between any two other languages is > less than difference to Smalltalk? > > >> -- >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Dennis Schetinin >> >> >> 2014-06-17 11:59 GMT+04:00 kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> personally I don't like this postcard , it looks too much like "snake >>> oil marketing" to me. >>> >>> It creates the illusion that Pharo is much simpler than other >>> programming languages as a programming language while nothing can be >>> further from the truth. The idea here is to prove to the viewer that Pharo >>> is based on a very simple recipe and that is of course true. But if we have >>> to be honest is should come with a disclaimer for the potential users that >>> Pharo is no blue pill and there tons of things outside this postcard you >>> need to learn if you want to create the simplest Pharo application. I will >>> be frank , as a language I dont find Pharo any simpler than let's say >>> python , which I am more familiar with. And the fact that there is this >>> simple recipe gave me zero benefits to me so far. Its a cool trick that may >>> come handy down the line if I want to shape the language more to my needs, >>> but I dont see doing this to a day by day basis. >>> >>> Now a "living coding postcard" stating the workflow of Pharo and >>> demonstrating the power of the debugger is much more honest and frankly >>> better marketing for Pharo. You show something to a person that will >>> benefit his workflow on a day by day basis. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Now, who is creative enough to add âdynamic arrayâ (one with curly >>>> braces) and temporaries in a block to the original thing: >>>> >>>> exampleWithNumber: x >>>> | y | >>>> true & false not & (nil isNil) ifFalse: [self halt]. >>>> y := self size + super size. >>>> #($a #a "a" 1 1.0) >>>> do: [ :each | >>>> Transcript show: (each class name); >>>> show: ' ']. >>>> ^x < y >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Uko >>>> >>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:35, Oscar Nierstrasz <oscar.nierstrasz(a)gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I got it from Stef, who always said it came originally from Ralph >>>> Johnson. >>>> >>>> http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SmalltalkSyntaxInaPostcard >>>> >>>> Googling around finds various copies of this, but no original source. >>>> >>>> Oscar >>>> >>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:58 , Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess itâs here: http://files.pharo.org/media/flyer-cheat-sheet.pdf >>>> >>>> I think that it would be interesting to put the syntax on a postcard. >>>> It can work as a proof of concept, some addition cheat-sheet for newcomers >>>> and also as some king of souvenir. >>>> >>>> Uko >>>> >>>> On 16 Jun 2014, at 10:36, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> you have the flyer of Damien (no idea where it is) but no real postcard. >>>> >>>> Stef >>>> >>>> On 16/6/14 09:35, Yuriy Tymchuk wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> we all are talking about the syntax fitting in a postcard, but was >>>> there any real postcard with Pharo syntax prototype? This would be really >>>> interesting. >>>> >>>> Uko >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >

June 19, 2014