- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-dev] smalltalkhub down

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Oct 28, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Philippe Marschall <philippe.marschall(a)netcetera.ch> wrote: > On 26.10.13 14:21, Sebastian Sastre wrote: >> 10 hours later we're still down... > > Calls for blog post [1] ;-) > > [1] https://github.com/blog/1346-network-problems-last-friday I'm quite sure that we we get 5% of the money of github for Smalltalkhub we can do a blog post too. Too bad we do not get these 5% not even 1% > > Cheers > Philippe > > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Camillo Bruni

>>> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >>> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >>> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >>> >>> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. >> >> I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. >> >> But, >> >> - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants >> - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) >> - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere >> - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified >> >> Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. >> >> As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. >> >> I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) > > I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Yuriy Tymchuk

On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:36, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:24, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > >> >> On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>>> 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? >>> >>> >>> markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you >>> highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-) >> >> If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown. >> >>> >>> >>>> 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. >>> >>> >>> because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we >>> can add the features we need. >>> >>> >>>> Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. >>> >>> >>> I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than >>> LaTeX. We want people to write books easily. >> >> Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. >> On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… >> And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. >> >> Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. > > I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. > > But, > > - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants > - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) > - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere > - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified > > Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. > > As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. > > I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :) > >> Cheers. >> Uko >> >>> >>> -- >>> Damien Cassou >>> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >>> >>> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >>> losing enthusiasm." >>> Winston Churchill

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:24, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >>> 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? >> >> >> markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you >> highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-) > > If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown. > >> >> >>> 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. >> >> >> because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we >> can add the features we need. >> >> >>> Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. >> >> >> I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than >> LaTeX. We want people to write books easily. > > Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. > On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6… > And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. > > Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. But, - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-) > Cheers. > Uko > >> >> -- >> Damien Cassou >> http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st >> >> "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without >> losing enthusiasm." >> Winston Churchill

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Losing instance variable addition

by Luc Fabresse

Hi All, I remember encountering the same problem somewhere and we fastly solved it using a preLoadDoit (I do not remember the exact name now) method of the ConfigurationOfOurProject in which we tested if the iv was there and if not added it. Cheers, #Luc 2013/10/30 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > Note that this is quite bad (and limit of MC) because it means that the > people are forced to copy the package, do the modification > and publish and do that each time the mother package will change. > > Stef > > On Oct 30, 2013, at 7:15 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > > > Ok in fact > > Gisela forked the AST-Core package to be able to load a new version with > the instance variables. > > Because there is no way to say that a class definition modification is > attached to a given package. > > > > Stef > > > >> Apparently the problem is that gisela is adding instance variable to a > class that is not in the Flamel package. > >> So it was working before but not anymore. > >> > >> Stef > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi guys > >>> > >>> we are losing instance variables addition when loading a package. > >>> Here is the example: > >>> > >>> Gofer new > >>> url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/gisela/Flamel/main'; > >>> version: 'Flamel-GiselaDecuzzi.94'; > >>> load > >>> > >>> Normally RBProgramNode should have three new instance variables and > not this is not the case. > >>> Is it a known bug? > >>> > >>> Stef > >> > >> > > > > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg

by Yuriy Tymchuk

On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: >> 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? > > > markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you > highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-) If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown. > > >> 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. > > > because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we > can add the features we need. > > >> Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. > > > I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than > LaTeX. We want people to write books easily. Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s… And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. Cheers. Uko > > -- > Damien Cassou > http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st > > "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without > losing enthusiasm." > Winston Churchill >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Losing instance variable addition

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Note that this is quite bad (and limit of MC) because it means that the people are forced to copy the package, do the modification and publish and do that each time the mother package will change. Stef On Oct 30, 2013, at 7:15 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > Ok in fact > Gisela forked the AST-Core package to be able to load a new version with the instance variables. > Because there is no way to say that a class definition modification is attached to a given package. > > Stef > >> Apparently the problem is that gisela is adding instance variable to a class that is not in the Flamel package. >> So it was working before but not anymore. >> >> Stef >> >> >> >>> Hi guys >>> >>> we are losing instance variables addition when loading a package. >>> Here is the example: >>> >>> Gofer new >>> url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/gisela/Flamel/main'; >>> version: 'Flamel-GiselaDecuzzi.94'; >>> load >>> >>> Normally RBProgramNode should have three new instance variables and not this is not the case. >>> Is it a known bug? >>> >>> Stef >> >> >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Losing instance variable addition

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Ok in fact Gisela forked the AST-Core package to be able to load a new version with the instance variables. Because there is no way to say that a class definition modification is attached to a given package. Stef > Apparently the problem is that gisela is adding instance variable to a class that is not in the Flamel package. > So it was working before but not anymore. > > Stef > > > >> Hi guys >> >> we are losing instance variables addition when loading a package. >> Here is the example: >> >> Gofer new >> url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/gisela/Flamel/main'; >> version: 'Flamel-GiselaDecuzzi.94'; >> load >> >> Normally RBProgramNode should have three new instance variables and not this is not the case. >> Is it a known bug? >> >> Stef > >

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo presentation at Smalltalk 2013

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 30 Oct 2013, at 16:22, StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > > http://www.slideshare.net/pharoproject/2013smalltalksconference-pharo-is-yo… > > Stef It is amazing how much has been achieved, especially in recent months in 3.0 Non-linear acceleration. Self-enforcing feedback loop. Sven

Oct. 30, 2013

Re: [Pharo-dev] Losing instance variable addition

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Apparently the problem is that gisela is adding instance variable to a class that is not in the Flamel package. So it was working before but not anymore. Stef > Hi guys > > we are losing instance variables addition when loading a package. > Here is the example: > > Gofer new > url: 'http://smalltalkhub.com/mc/gisela/Flamel/main'; > version: 'Flamel-GiselaDecuzzi.94'; > load > > Normally RBProgramNode should have three new instance variables and not this is not the case. > Is it a known bug? > > Stef

Oct. 30, 2013