Le 9/5/15 16:24, Eliot Miranda a ��crit��:


On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 5:37 AM, stepharo <stepharo@free.fr> wrote:
Hi guys

Eliot I do not understand why you are reacting like that. Our goal is not to make the live of people worse. All the efforts we
do in Pharo is to get better.

Reacting like what?��

Why do you mentioned doctrine? I was sad about this remark.
Our goal is to produce a good environment with excellent tools. Now you believe that I changed this code because I do not know what.
What I would have prefered is that you take the same attitude than me: consider that your case made sense. Remember that
I raised the issue because I discussed with clement and I wanted to understand why my changes were not good.
But you tell me that I follow a doctrine. Well. Now I should have continue to believe that I'm right and I would feel much better.
Now the truth should be also in the eye of the beholder.
������ You think that transcript should the fast and you do not care about thread safety.
������ When I started to work on concurrency, should I write in the book that the students should not use the transcript because
������ it does not handle concurrent updates. It does not look sexy for arrogant people like us that claim having excellent tools?

������ I always thought that the transcript' goal was to display correctly results of program execution not just sequential execution.
������ And with two threads the old transcript clearly does not do it. So to me the "fast" transcript is broken. And up to today I
������ did not see any class comments mentionning that the transcript first goal was to be fast displaying something.

Stef

��
I am trying to establish that the transcript is broken and needs fixing.�� Do you agree or not?�� If you don't agree then fine, Cl��ment will continue to develop the VM in Squeak, and I'll always be confused about the Pharo community's ability to discuss technical issues.

If you do agree, then why not plan to fix it?

If instead you don't want to discuss the technical issue and instead see this as some kind of emotional attack then I'm sorry but that's completely dysfuncitonal.�� People make mistakes.�� Communities bake bad decisions.�� These things happen.�� But mature people and functional communities can recognize (you notice I didn't say admit, no one wants to ridicule people for their mistakes, I make serious mistakes continuously) their mistakes and rectify them.

I am /not/ attacking the community, I am /not/ saying that Pharo is not trying to improve things, I am /not/ saying the old transcript was the most perfect piece of software ever, I am saying that the current behaviour and api of the transcript is *broken*.�� It needs to be a) compatible with WriteStream, and b) needs to display its output as soon as it is sent flush.�� Do you disagree?

��
I changed the transcript because when I started to work on concurrent programming chapters then the transcript was simply useless.
Now I would like to know how we can improve the solution and this is why I sent this mail.
But apparently I should not have.�� :(

I did not send it to receive your kind of emails. I'm convinced you can do better. I do not know what you mean about doctrine.
Pharo objectives is to bring money in Smalltalk and to build better tools and infrastructure.

Stef





--
best,
Eliot