- Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by GermÃ¡n Arduino

2011/4/20 Janko MivÅ¡ek <janko.mivsek(a)eranova.si>: > Next thing, let we rather start integrating different Smalltalk code on > all our dialects first and using SmalltalkHub for socializing in > Smalltalk community as a whole. First, and before socializing with > others! Here SmalltalkHub again promise a lot and we can actually > achieve a goal of *one*, only one entry point to *all* Smalltalk code, > in *all* dialects! > This is an interesting point also. Would be nice to have some sort of common things between all the smalltalks.

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by GermÃ¡n Arduino

I would had responded to Casey, Dale and more, but selected this mail to write my response! 2011/4/20 Scott Gibson <wsgibson(a)windstream.net>: > I have been using a DVCS since at least 2005 and live by it for Perl (as well as other things) development. Â It is frustrating for me to use anything else. Â Because I have to jump between tasks, and because I am so scatter brained, I need it in order to simply keep track of all my projects and the changes that I have made. Â A DVCS fits to my workflow no matter how I need to do my work. > > However, though I am very new to Smalltalk and while I am used to the tools that I have been using for years I still do not feel compelled to use a DVCS that I am so used to. Â Monticello could use some improvements perhaps, but I currently do not see a compelling reason to change it for something else. Â I appreciate what an object system has to offer instead of just flat files. Â Things are radically different for me now. Â Instead of dealing with a combination of a RDBMS, Perl applications, and shell scripts I have a complete system with more than just a language (thanks Eliot for the clarity). Â All the time I am used to using UNIX commands, SQL commands, editor features just to do my work. Â With Smalltalk I have all of that with a consistent language that reduces all of the ways I need to consider to slice and dice the things I am looking to accomplish. Â And all of this in just an image file! > A big big big agreement with you. And is of a great value that a new smalltalker (as you are telling about yourself) put the finger on this topic: the image! The image is the environment (the ecosystem as one of my teachers says) were the objects live. To me, a Smalltalk without image is not a Smalltalk and really never will like a no-image Smalltalk because is not Smalltalk, may be is other thing, but not Smalltalk. Then I'm totally against the flat-files if their use means loss the image. Smalltalk is about objects, and objects live in the image as the fishes live in the tank. No tank, no water, then only dead fishes, not alive fishes. To not mention the other relationships in a live ecosystem. GermÃ¡n.

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] [Pharo-users] [COTDC] 52 - PCXReadWriter

by Guillermo Polito

I am an Image ReadWriter supposed to be in charge of PCX file encoding and decoding. Actually, as my instances does not implement understandsImageFormat, they use the default ^false implementation and I cannot be used. I don't have uses in the image also :). But in case I am fixed, the code to open a morph with a pcx image is: PCXReadWriter formFromFileNamed: 'anImage.pcx'. ;) Guille On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM, laurent laffont <laurent.laffont(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Today: PCXReadWriter > > > Comment Of The Day Contest - One Day One Comment > Rules: > #1: Each day a not commented class is elected. Each day the best comment > will be integrated with name of the author(s). > #2: If you cannot comment it, deprecate it. > Results: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/CommentOfTheDayContest > > Laurent >

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by Miguel CobÃ¡

El miÃ©, 20-04-2011 a las 18:17 -0400, Scott Gibson escribiÃ³: > I have been using a DVCS since at least 2005 and live by it for Perl (as well as other things) development. It is frustrating for me to use anything else. Because I have to jump between tasks, and because I am so scatter brained, I need it in order to simply keep track of all my projects and the changes that I have made. A DVCS fits to my workflow no matter how I need to do my work. > > However, though I am very new to Smalltalk and while I am used to the tools that I have been using for years I still do not feel compelled to use a DVCS that I am so used to. Monticello could use some improvements perhaps, but I currently do not see a compelling reason to change it for something else. I appreciate what an object system has to offer instead of just flat files. Things are radically different for me now. Instead of dealing with a combination of a RDBMS, Perl applications, and shell scripts I have a complete system with more than just a language (thanks Eliot for the clarity). All the time I am used to using UNIX commands, SQL commands, editor features just to do my work. With Smalltalk I have all of that with a consistent language that reduces all of the ways I need to consider to slice and dice the things I am looking to accomplish. And all of this in just an image file! > > I do still struggle hard with Smalltalk (it is so new and so radically different for me - yet the code is so much cleaner and easier when done right) but I still do not see a compelling reason to use Git for my development. > > I know this discussion tends to come up ever so often. What am I missing? Is it perhaps because I am coming from the outside in? If you use Git what benefit would you have by using binary files? Or if you were to use some sort of text file, what benefit would you have by removing them from the system in which they exist? A couple of things, - Squeak/Pharo already use files, that is a fact and is unavoidable (changes files, image files, sources files, etc) so the thing is not if using or not files. They are used and they have killed anyone by themselves. - The point is not use files to store the source code but integrate Squeak/Pharo with infrastructure that building on the capabilities given by git to the developers (mainly cheap and fast branching) added a social ingredient that is revolutioning the way that projects are being developed in the open source world. That is what github is doing. Has nothing to do with if git versioning files or blobs or objects. It is that enables people to show, publish, fork, contribute back and advertise its open source project in a way that is visible to a lot more people that ever before. Cheers -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by Miguel CobÃ¡

I don't think that the issue is the file-ness of the subject, but the easiness that other opensource projects enjoy in part because of their tool, even if they aren't as pure in their object-ness as the ones Smalltalk have. As someone said, the UI of Monticello is very, umm, unintiuitive, has bad support for branching, avoiding some effect that the git users (and in particular github has contributed to popularize) that nobody has to ask for permission for modifying some project and then contributing back the changes to the main project. This is notorious difficult with MC/Squeaksource combo when the repo is only read, when the maintainer has to do a not minor effort to track contributions and integrating them back. And of course, the visibility that those tools have is no even in the reach of squeaksource (with those ugly urls that include session data that from time to time appears in mails refering to projects in squeaksource). In that respect git/github no matter if file-based or not are the clear example to emule and even to use for smalltalk open source projects. Cheers El miÃ©, 20-04-2011 a las 18:00 -0300, GermÃ¡n Arduino escribiÃ³: > 2011/4/20 Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com>: > > > > It's just an added dimension of complexity ... not to mention the cost of converting existing development processes, tools, artifacts to the new system...it took Monticello nearly a decade to become commonly used:) > > > > I think that this is a problem that does need to be solved (along with others:) so I'm not claiming that "all is lost, we'll never be file-based" I just think it is a tough problem that would have been solved by now, if it was easy:) > > > > A thing I not understand is why we need to go "file-based" if we are > already object based (several steps ahead)? > > > > > Until then, long live SqueakSource3 and SmalltalkHub:) > > > > Sure! But, (I'm only asking) we couldn't using Git with objects? It's > only curiosity, not that I would like Git, eheh, I knew Github only > today! > > GermÃ¡n. > -- Miguel CobÃ¡ http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 21 Apr 2011, at 00:09, Janko MivÅ¡ek wrote: > Here is the point - familiarity! And we don't need to adopt GitHub > completely for that, just visual familiarity of SmalltalkHub will help > us to come closer to GitHub communities, that's I'm pretty sure. > > So, let we stop thinking about "file-based" integration with GitHub, let > we talk about social aspects (as familiarity also is) and as Sebastian > is trying to tell us. As you seen on SmalltalkHub, we will actually got > quite some "social" infrastructure now, which is very similar to GitHub. > Nico as GNU Smalltalker is namely a daily user of GitHub (where Iliad > and Jtalk resides), so he has quite some experience of social aspects > there. > > Next thing, let we rather start integrating different Smalltalk code on > all our dialects first and using SmalltalkHub for socializing in > Smalltalk community as a whole. First, and before socializing with > others! Here SmalltalkHub again promise a lot and we can actually > achieve a goal of *one*, only one entry point to *all* Smalltalk code, > in *all* dialects! +1

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by Scott Gibson

I have been using a DVCS since at least 2005 and live by it for Perl (as well as other things) development. It is frustrating for me to use anything else. Because I have to jump between tasks, and because I am so scatter brained, I need it in order to simply keep track of all my projects and the changes that I have made. A DVCS fits to my workflow no matter how I need to do my work. However, though I am very new to Smalltalk and while I am used to the tools that I have been using for years I still do not feel compelled to use a DVCS that I am so used to. Monticello could use some improvements perhaps, but I currently do not see a compelling reason to change it for something else. I appreciate what an object system has to offer instead of just flat files. Things are radically different for me now. Instead of dealing with a combination of a RDBMS, Perl applications, and shell scripts I have a complete system with more than just a language (thanks Eliot for the clarity). All the time I am used to using UNIX commands, SQL commands, editor features just to do my work. With Smalltalk I have all of that with a consistent language that reduces all of the ways I need to consider to slice and dice the things I am looking to accomplish. And all of this in just an image file! I do still struggle hard with Smalltalk (it is so new and so radically different for me - yet the code is so much cleaner and easier when done right) but I still do not see a compelling reason to use Git for my development. I know this discussion tends to come up ever so often. What am I missing? Is it perhaps because I am coming from the outside in? If you use Git what benefit would you have by using binary files? Or if you were to use some sort of text file, what benefit would you have by removing them from the system in which they exist? Thanks! Scott Gibson On Apr 20, 2011, at 5:26 PM, Dale Henrichs wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:00 PM, GermÃ¡n Arduino wrote: > >> 2011/4/20 Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com>: >>> >>> It's just an added dimension of complexity ... not to mention the cost of converting existing development processes, tools, artifacts to the new system...it took Monticello nearly a decade to become commonly used:) >>> >>> I think that this is a problem that does need to be solved (along with others:) so I'm not claiming that "all is lost, we'll never be file-based" I just think it is a tough problem that would have been solved by now, if it was easy:) >>> >> >> A thing I not understand is why we need to go "file-based" if we are >> already object based (several steps ahead)? > > The folks that would like to see Smalltalk be more file-based have very good points ... Smalltalk would be more accessible to other developers, it would be easier for folks to learn Smalltalk if they didn't have to learn new tools along with a new language, etc.... > > So it would be really nice if we could keep our object orientation while providing a development environment that was familiar to developers from other languages .... > > we'd have our cake and eat it too:) > >> >> >> >>> Until then, long live SqueakSource3 and SmalltalkHub:) >>> >> >> Sure! But, (I'm only asking) we couldn't using Git with objects? It's >> only curiosity, not that I would like Git, eheh, I knew Github only >> today! > > At the moment I don't think that a transition to to Git would be transparent ... If it were that easy, I would think that it would be done by now:). > > I'd love to be wrong:) > > Dale -- Scott Gibson wsgibson(a)windstream.net

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

On 20. 04. 2011 23:26, Dale Henrichs wrote: >> A thing I not understand is why we need to go "file-based" if we are >> already object based (several steps ahead)? > > The folks that would like to see Smalltalk be more file-based have very good points ... Smalltalk would be more accessible to other developers, it would be easier for folks to learn Smalltalk if they didn't have to learn new tools along with a new language, etc.... > > So it would be really nice if we could keep our object orientation while providing a development environment that was familiar to developers from other languages .... Here is the point - familiarity! And we don't need to adopt GitHub completely for that, just visual familiarity of SmalltalkHub will help us to come closer to GitHub communities, that's I'm pretty sure. So, let we stop thinking about "file-based" integration with GitHub, let we talk about social aspects (as familiarity also is) and as Sebastian is trying to tell us. As you seen on SmalltalkHub, we will actually got quite some "social" infrastructure now, which is very similar to GitHub. Nico as GNU Smalltalker is namely a daily user of GitHub (where Iliad and Jtalk resides), so he has quite some experience of social aspects there. Next thing, let we rather start integrating different Smalltalk code on all our dialects first and using SmalltalkHub for socializing in Smalltalk community as a whole. First, and before socializing with others! Here SmalltalkHub again promise a lot and we can actually achieve a goal of *one*, only one entry point to *all* Smalltalk code, in *all* dialects! Best regards Janko -- Janko MivÅ¡ek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

April 21, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] input for pending items to integrate

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Ok I got the message :) Stef > Hi Stef, > > RPackage and Announcements would be on the top of my preferences :) > > Cheers, > Doru > > On 20 Apr 2011, at 13:01, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > >> Hi guys >> >> Take three minutes and reply to this mail. I would like to get a list of pending fixes I should focus on to help you. >> Because I can take the tagged items but this is a bit like ok that one >> but I want to make sure that I'm spending time to making you making progress. >> So just tell me. >> >> I will try to integrate some fixes regularly now. >> My own list is >> Transcript :) >> Zinc >> and fixxxxing RPackage :( >> Stef > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "When people care, great things can happen." > > > >

April 20, 2011

Re: [Pharo-project] Smalltalk, git, files, the universe and everything...okay not everything:)

by Dale Henrichs

On Apr 20, 2011, at 2:00 PM, GermÃ¡n Arduino wrote: > 2011/4/20 Dale Henrichs <dhenrich(a)vmware.com>: >> >> It's just an added dimension of complexity ... not to mention the cost of converting existing development processes, tools, artifacts to the new system...it took Monticello nearly a decade to become commonly used:) >> >> I think that this is a problem that does need to be solved (along with others:) so I'm not claiming that "all is lost, we'll never be file-based" I just think it is a tough problem that would have been solved by now, if it was easy:) >> > > A thing I not understand is why we need to go "file-based" if we are > already object based (several steps ahead)? The folks that would like to see Smalltalk be more file-based have very good points ... Smalltalk would be more accessible to other developers, it would be easier for folks to learn Smalltalk if they didn't have to learn new tools along with a new language, etc.... So it would be really nice if we could keep our object orientation while providing a development environment that was familiar to developers from other languages .... we'd have our cake and eat it too:) > > > >> Until then, long live SqueakSource3 and SmalltalkHub:) >> > > Sure! But, (I'm only asking) we couldn't using Git with objects? It's > only curiosity, not that I would like Git, eheh, I knew Github only > today! At the moment I don't think that a transition to to Git would be transparent ... If it were that easy, I would think that it would be done by now:). I'd love to be wrong:) Dale

April 20, 2011