Re: [Pharo-dev] Roadmap for Pharo 8.0
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev < pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote:
Dear All,
At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages.
We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist?
I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. A+ -- Serge Stinckwic h Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) Sorbonne University (SU) French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) U niversity of Yaoundé I, Cameroun "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich
Am 08.02.2019 um 16:47 schrieb Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> wrote: Dear All,
At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages.
We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist?
I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. A+
I donât agree. Why should we reduce the size of the default image? It should show a lot of things you can do with pharo. As everything is loaded from bootstrap we can have now every size of the image we want. I would rather see an official minimal image that people will download for building their software. But the development should contain everything that eases development and shows what pharo can do. The critical border to me is what we provide in documentation. On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on and these tools would be missing. Norbert
-- Serge Stinckwich Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) Sorbonne University (SU) French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) University of Yaoundé I, Cameroun "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich <https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich>
+1 (with proviso there is that minimal image you can use to build up from)
On 8 Feb 2019, at 15:57, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
Am 08.02.2019 um 16:47 schrieb Serge Stinckwich <serge.stinckwich@gmail.com <mailto:serge.stinckwich@gmail.com>>:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 4:41 PM Alexandre Bergel via Pharo-dev <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org <mailto:pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>> wrote: Dear All,
At the consortium meeting we discussed the possibility to have a mini-Roassal included in Pharo8. Many opportunities exist: displaying graph of commits in iceberg, displaying UML within the code browser, visualizing dependencies between packages.
We are motivated about it, and we should produce a runnable proposal ready to be evaluated by the community within a couple of months. Does it make sense? Any thought about it? Do you have a wishlist?
I will not be be strongly against it because I see benefits, but IHMO we need to reduce the size of Pharo image. Might be interesting to have charts included in the base. A+
I donât agree. Why should we reduce the size of the default image? It should show a lot of things you can do with pharo. As everything is loaded from bootstrap we can have now every size of the image we want. I would rather see an official minimal image that people will download for building their software. But the development should contain everything that eases development and shows what pharo can do. The critical border to me is what we provide in documentation. On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on and these tools would be missing.
Norbert
-- Serge Stinckwich Int. Research Unit on Modelling/Simulation of Complex Systems (UMMISCO) Sorbonne University (SU) French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD) University of Yaoundé I, Cameroun "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute." https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich <https://twitter.com/SergeStinckwich>
NorbertHartl wrote
On the one hand we could benefit from powerful code documentation. But this could conflict with the minimum image we provide where people work on and these tools would be missing.
Yes, this can be a complex problem. For me the key question is what's the point of having a Dynabook if we can't even use it ourselves as developers?! However, isn't the use case for the minimum image more for deployment? I would think that most devs would/could work in the full image and then deploy to the minimal, where interactive documentation would be presumably less important. Also IIUC, in GT the interactive documentation is just pillar underneath and so could be read in static form even if the UI engine wasn't present e.g. as class comments. Also, it seems the full docs should be loadable onto minimal if needed, no? OT: I was happy to see the recent announcement of a GH-based project catalog, but at the same time was disappointed to see it seemingly implemented as text. I wasn't going to say anything because I didn't want to complain about a nice gift, but since this subject is mildly related, I'll just mention that IMHO it makes much more sense to have something that is a static dump of a dynamic system like the Pharo Catalog than to have two competing systems - one live and one not. ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
participants (4)
-
Norbert Hartl -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Serge Stinckwich -
Tim Mackinnon