- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by dimitris chloupis

I did not want to take this discussion further , because I dont like to annoy people . But some of the points made here are presented as facts and I don't like that. > Chris, in discussions about "compatibility" , people always missing to > mention one little thing: > users can always choose to not upgrade their projects and keep using > older releases. I will mention another thing. Freedom is an illusion. In the end you are always bound by limitations and your own personal needs. Especially that nasty little thing that is called "dependecies". When a library depends on an another , not upgrading can be not even option. This is why I separate braking compatibility in the language side and braking compatibility in the library side. I am perfectly ok with libraries that brake compatibility , why ? Because you can ignore a library and just move to something that fit your needs better. But with language is a lot more difficult to do that usually because the libraries that you are going to use are going to depend on a specific language version. > Now, don't you think that it would be strange if new release of system > will function exactly as old one, so users can run their project(s) > without changing even single line of code? > This is possible only if new system(s) should be same thing but with > extra functionality. No I don't find it strange , actually its not even rare, its common practice for most libraries out there not to brake backward compatibility. > And that will mean that development model would be "never change > anything, but add things on top".. Nope thats simple is not true, you are allowed to change everything except the name of the methods and classes. Which is a small part of the code. And you are also allowed to add as much new stuff as you want as long as its optional. This means that there is nothing stopping a backward compatible library new version to be better than a non backward compatible library new version. > The software has to evolve, and evolution means changes. And so, if > you wanna benefit from system improvements, you'll have to make your > hands dirty and do some changes in your code to fit with new system. > This is a price you pay for having better system. And there's no > escape from that. I don't know why you believe that backward compatible means no progress and non backward compatible means progress. This is simply not true from my experience. I have used a lot of backward compatible libraries and they keep getting better and better. The only piece of software that I used that has gone through the biggest rewrite ever, is blender and I have to admit that the rewrite greatly benefit blender. But blender had a lot of issues and it was clear that much of its basic functionality was deeply flawed and desperately needed a refresh in design. Thats not always the case with software. Some designs have stood the test of time so braking compatibility makes no sense. If you want to keep improving that specific library you can keep doing it. I can give you an example if you want, VCL , it's Delphi's own library. We talking here about a massive library nothing like smalltalk libraries. Has been backward compatible since 1996 that I have first used Delphi and its still is probably the best library I have used together with the other Delphi libraries. The guy behind Delphi knew exactly what a good design is and knew how to makeÂ real R.A.D tools which is pretty much the goal of smalltalk itself. The result was that his designs were so successful and liked that he was snatched from Mircrosoft to create .NET and C#. Suffice to say .NET clone most of the designs of Delphi. But even till this day Delphi is highly popular (not as popular as it was in the past) and highly regarded piece of software. But as I said , I am not against braking backward compatibility , in many cases its the best thing to do. But if braking backward compatibility is always your first option then I fear you are going to have the exact same problems blender has with addons developers. And certainly users wont love you, I can guarantee you that not in the short run or the long run. Another thing I must state here , is that as a user did not choose pharo over squeak because it brakes compatibility. I am saying that because I fear I am not the only one to have done so. Because its a dangerous conclusion for one to make that just because someone prefers pharo to squeak because for him it has been more stable and because more libraries are actively developed for it, that is implied he is a big fan of braking compatibility. I also respect the fact that you as developers decided to make "braking compatibility" as a central value of pharo. Its your project you have the right to do whatever you want with it. And I am not even saying its a wrong choice. I only hope for me and others that I dont end up hitting my head against the wall as I have done with the blender api. I can bare a bad design and even get used to it, but something that brakes my code in every single version is simply.... a pain in the a@@ And staying with old versions is not a viable solution for me. I will probably end up choosing squeak or whatever can make my life happy and fun again.Â On 14 December 2012 23:42, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> - the consensus is that FileSystem is a nice API >> - the consensus is that FileDirectory is/was ugly > > Hence, you echo my original statement from the other thread.Â I wrote: > >>> ... While someone in the Pharo >>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. > >> And you don't want to switch to it ? >> Or you want to keep the old API and not force the switch on users ? > > Both.Â Because, while FileSystem is a cleaner design, the question > posed was whether it is _worth_ breaking so many legacy packages and > the promise of O.T. for "a nice API".Â That's when dramatic attempts > to intensify the contrast between the two came out but with no > concrete examples we arrived full-circle back to the original > question. > > An acceptable compromise for me for putting it Squeak would be a > FileDirectory wrapper that can pass its own test suite, which is > precisely what Pharo did! > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Chris Could you give us a break pleaseeeeeee? We are spending all our energy to build a better system that other people can use to make a living. May be we should just create a system for having fun in our teams? Because at the end of the day we just need to produce ideas and some prototypes (not even build them as researchers). I really think that there are still plenty of places where the system is not good. If you disagree then you may want to spend more time trying to extend it and build something real with it. (Here this is the place where you should react and prove to the world that you are a cool entrepreneur) ;D Now nobody force you to: - be in this mailing-list (you are welcome here but can we avoid this kind of endless useless discussions) or phrase your points with code snippet that can help the system. - use pharo in fact you are not using it so you are living in an happy world. So this is perfect. Did you read the Pharo motto? Stef On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Chris Muller wrote: > I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I > don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or > intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This > example is bunk. > > Sean chose a method in ZipDirectoryMember written by Ned Konz in 2002 > which, for whatever reason, is admittedly not great code but that's > not the point -- Sean is trying to use this example to demonstrate how > using FileSystem will let you "scale new heights" over FileDirectory. > The real equivalent to what Sean wrote is: > > "FileDirectory" > localFileName: aString > | file | > super localFileName: aString. > file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. > file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. > self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. > > "FileSystem" > localFileName: aString > | file | > super localFileName: aString. > file := aString asFileName. > file exists ifFalse: [ ^ self ]. > self modifiedAt: file entry modificationTime. > > Ahhhh, I've broken all my systems but look how I'm scaling new heights > with FileSystem! (not!) > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Sean P. DeNigris > <sean(a)clipperadams.com> wrote: >> Chris Muller-4 wrote >>> While someone in the Pharo >>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>> incremental API change >> >> Can you still say that after reading >> http://forum.world.st/The-Magic-of-FileSystem-td4635471.html ?! >> >> FileSystem has hugely decremented the number of times I've wanted to throw >> my computer at a wall ;) FileDirectory occurred to me like graffiti painted >> on a great work of art. >> >> Multiply the above by every dark corner of the system and you have the >> barrier to the next stage of evolution. For myself, every time I've embarked >> on a bold new idea for our IDE, after getting bogged down in a mess of >> objects - like FileDirectory et al, or Paragraph and friends, or Morphic >> layout objects, and on and on - I reached a point where I was not willing to >> put in the tremendous effort required to understand the system (if even >> possible). And because few of the design decisions are documented, I didn't >> know how to clean things without breaking them. So, I gave up and just went >> back to the standard tools. >> >> I hate to keep repeating myself, but the Pharo manifesto is very clear, and >> makes these types of arguments moot: >> - Better for the better >> - Beauty to learn from >> - Not backward compatible >> - Clean, lean and fast >> >> Cheers, >> Sean >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/About-backwards-Compatibility-tp4658784p4659133.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] who is "dfgs"?

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

we should remove it or fix it. No kitchen sink in Pharo please. Stef On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote: > And are we allowed to remove features? ;-) On the other hand, we may look at it as fix of an umimplemented call. But we can let it there because I doubt we will be able to remove all unimplemented calls in 2.0 - even in the Pharo Kernel. > > -- Pavel > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I know I will use it (though I am not allowed to add more features in 2.0 ;)) > so it will be 3.0. Anyways I will add a fully-fledged command-line REPL. > > so it's up to you, I can add it again anyway > > On 2012-12-14, at 05:07, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > So what about to remove VTermInputDriver from the image? And add it in > > future with working handler. > > > > -- Pavel > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni(a)gmail.com>wrote: > > > >> haha, so these are commits from the pre-full-name aera. > >> Anyway, dfgs was a student in bern ;), but since I put the code in the > >> system I should be the owner ;). > >> > >> VTerm*Driver abstract over the terminal, and yes they are crucial for any > >> decent terminal support. > >> - provide colors for terminal > >> - provide cursor navigation > >> - provide terminal capability access > >> > >> due to lack of NativeBoost in the main image, > >> so far I could not use tcap, but that will change. > >> > >> So far I did not port the input handler (but there is a fully fledged > >> smalltalk-based readline implementation ready). > >> Once that is in the image there should be no more undefined calls. > >> > >> And using #perform: is a very bad habit in my opinion. > >> It breaks all tools, since you make everything implicit (and quite slow as > >> well).. > >> > >> On 2012-12-11, at 09:05, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> ... and please, please, please, use real names, not initials when > >> committing packages! > >>> > >>> Esteban > >>> > >>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I would like to ask who has the initials "dfgs". And I have a question > >> for him/her. The VTermInputDriver initialization methods generate a lot of > >> unimplemented calls because they expect a handler object with protocol that > >> is not defined in the image. Do we need the VTerm classes at all? Can you > >> provide an abstract handler class? Or what about to switch this calls to > >> perform:/perform:with: form. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> -- Pavel > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Favorite New Features

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

I will probably spend a couple of hours to check what we did. But frankly this is so boring and dull that I'm not sure I will do it. Stef On Dec 14, 2012, at 5:12 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote: > Hey guys, what are your favorite features added in 2.0? Please answer at > http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/ActionsInPharo20 > > There are so many improvements, I've definitely lost track. I remember there > were some really useful shortcuts cami or ben showed me, something like > cmd-click to browse class... > > Cheers, > Sean > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Favorite-New-Features-tp4659272.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: Lua scripting with nativeboost?

by Igor Stasenko

On 14 December 2012 21:26, Lawson English <lenglish5(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 12/13/12 1:58 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> On 13 December 2012 09:54, dimitris chloupis <thekilon(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> I was ready to disagree , but you do make a valid point. >>> >>> Also going down the pharo route you dont offer games only a better >>> language >>> but also a development enviroment and that is a double win. I am suprised >>> that pharo is not used heavily for games. >>> >>> And no I dont believe sandbox is the reason. Afterall python is very >>> popular >>> with games too and has no sandbox. >> >> indeed, its all about marketing and having 'killer app', and then you >> wont notice how eagerly new >> people will jump into bandwagon. >> >> > > until certain issues with garbage collection are fixed, there will be no > playable realtime games on any of the OSS Smalltalks. > and why you assuming that "killer game" should be realtime? But even if that.. i do not agree with you. You can always write a heavy numeric crunching stuff in C, but write game logic in smalltalk. Most of AAA games i seen, paying a lot of attention to crunching, and little to logic.. and then people like get bored after 10 minutes of play. Because running twice as fast don't converts into "playing twice as fun". > L -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Igor Stasenko

Chris, in discussions about "compatibility" , people always missing to mention one little thing: users can always choose to not upgrade their projects and keep using older releases. Now, don't you think that it would be strange if new release of system will function exactly as old one, so users can run their project(s) without changing even single line of code? This is possible only if new system(s) should be same thing but with extra functionality. And that will mean that development model would be "never change anything, but add things on top".. But as Markus mentioned, this is completely inappropriate for "system development". I think a more appropriate term for such model would be "system add-ons development". And it is clearly not what we want to do. Also, if there's no changes for your project, what is the point to migrate your project to newer version of system? There will be no win for you: your software will not run faster, will consume same amount of resources, and it is not using new features which were added. So, why just not keep using old release? The software has to evolve, and evolution means changes. And so, if you wanna benefit from system improvements, you'll have to make your hands dirty and do some changes in your code to fit with new system. This is a price you pay for having better system. And there's no escape from that. On 14 December 2012 23:42, Chris Muller <ma.chris.m(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> - the consensus is that FileSystem is a nice API >> - the consensus is that FileDirectory is/was ugly > > Hence, you echo my original statement from the other thread. I wrote: > >>> ... While someone in the Pharo >>> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >>> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. > >> And you don't want to switch to it ? >> Or you want to keep the old API and not force the switch on users ? > > Both. Because, while FileSystem is a cleaner design, the question > posed was whether it is _worth_ breaking so many legacy packages and > the promise of O.T. for "a nice API". That's when dramatic attempts > to intensify the contrast between the two came out but with no > concrete examples we arrived full-circle back to the original > question. > > An acceptable compromise for me for putting it Squeak would be a > FileDirectory wrapper that can pass its own test suite, which is > precisely what Pharo did! > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Is the plugin JoystickTabletPlugin of the CogVM package working?

by Carla Griggio

Hi Eliot! I'm using MacOsX Mountain Lion (10.8.2) . I also tried it in Lion (10.7.5). I used Pharo 2.0 (and also Pharo 1.4) with the latest Cog from ci.pharo-project.org. El 14/12/2012, a las 23:52, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda(a)gmail.com> escribiÃ³: > Hi Carla, > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Carla F. Griggio <carla.griggio(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello! >> Does anybody know if the JoystickTabletPlugin is actually working for Pharo? I'm trying to use it with CogVM with no success :( I see in InputEventHandler that there is support for pen tablets using this plugin but I can't manage to make it work. As it comes in the CogVM package I assume that somebody put it there because it works, but I keep getting "PrimitiveFailed" error messages wether I have a tablet connected or not. >> >> The external plugins of the CogVM are supposed to work without me doing anything? Just executing the VM? Or do I have to activate them somehow? >> >> Sorry for keep bothering with this :$ And thanks! > > the Qwaq VM, which became the Cog fork disabled the joystick plugin. We can try and ressurect it but I'm not sure what is involved. What platform are you on? > > -- > best, > Eliot >

Dec. 15, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] Is the plugin JoystickTabletPlugin of the CogVM package working?

by Eliot Miranda

Hi Carla, On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Carla F. Griggio <carla.griggio(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hello! > Does anybody know if the JoystickTabletPlugin is actually working for > Pharo? I'm trying to use it with CogVM with no success :( I see > in InputEventHandler that there is support for pen tablets using this > plugin but I can't manage to make it work. As it comes in the CogVM package > I assume that somebody put it there because it works, but I keep getting > "PrimitiveFailed" error messages wether I have a tablet connected or not. > > The external plugins of the CogVM are supposed to work without me doing > anything? Just executing the VM? Or do I have to activate them somehow? > > Sorry for keep bothering with this :$ And thanks! > the Qwaq VM, which became the Cog fork disabled the joystick plugin. We can try and ressurect it but I'm not sure what is involved. What platform are you on? -- best, Eliot

Dec. 14, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by Chris Muller

> - the consensus is that FileSystem is a nice API > - the consensus is that FileDirectory is/was ugly Hence, you echo my original statement from the other thread. I wrote: >> ... While someone in the Pharo >> community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an >> incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. > And you don't want to switch to it ? > Or you want to keep the old API and not force the switch on users ? Both. Because, while FileSystem is a cleaner design, the question posed was whether it is _worth_ breaking so many legacy packages and the promise of O.T. for "a nice API". That's when dramatic attempts to intensify the contrast between the two came out but with no concrete examples we arrived full-circle back to the original question. An acceptable compromise for me for putting it Squeak would be a FileDirectory wrapper that can pass its own test suite, which is precisely what Pharo did!

Dec. 14, 2012

Re: [Pharo-project] About (backwards) Compatibility

by H. Hirzel

On 12/14/12, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 14 Dec 2012, at 17:55, Chris Muller <asqueaker(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm tired of talking about this but I just can't let this go.. I >> don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or >> intentional false-propaganda but... confusion reigns here! :) This >> example is bunk. > > Please, this is so silly: > > - the consensus is that FileSystem is a nice API > - the consensus is that FileDirectory is/was ugly > > And you don't want to switch to it ? > Or you want to keep the old API and not force the switch on users ? > > BTW: it is a done deal. The "deal" is done in the sense that Pharo 2.0 only uses FileSystem. This is the platform developer point of view. Sven, please take note that the deal is not done from the 'User land point' of view. Just recently Pharo 2.0 has gone from alpha to beta. Not to mention the porting status of the packages which build on it. So it is good to have alternatives as Igor points out -- Squeak, Cuis and earlier versions of Pharo. --Hannes > > -- > Sven Van Caekenberghe > http://stfx.eu > Smalltalk is the Red Pill > > > > >

Dec. 14, 2012