On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 19:31, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm.cat@gmail.com> wrote
The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying to move the window (it was a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't.
If we do [ | m | [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . m position: 0@0. m openInWorld . 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] ] ensure: [ m delete ] . ] value we see nothing. if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the way Morphic world runs you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound nice to me too.
Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another process ?
I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad.
ahh yes. Maybe we're not ready to be that adventurous yet. cheers -ben
Unlike other software environments, smalltalk(s) allow you to change virtually anything in the system. And i found this to be really great thing.. and was happy until the moment i realized that the real thing, that prevents changes is not the software but people who opposing the changes :)
Nonsense. Changes are not the same as breakages. I've just changed the entire VM and object representation. I implemented a JIT and then followed up with a faster one, and Clément and I are following up with an even faster one. But I didn't break things; I made them better. SOmeone who reimplements the transcript so that - it doesn't have all the stream messages any more, and hence isn't a stream as it was always, - it doesn't update has not made changes; they have broken things. And in a shared space we rightly get to complain when that happens. -- best, Eliot