[Pharo-project] support for flattening-out traits for export?
Just a meta question.....
What about real questions: - are Traits used these days - in which packages and why - how is the adoption rate I havent much used them by myself (mostly due to the lack of time to dig into it) but I would like to learn about the current state of Traits (is it used, maintained, usable). And yes - we can add lots of (language) features. But we should also discuss/measure/find out if they are usefull. Some of them help us moving forward others may stand in our way. And "Keep it simple" is always a good rule ... One great thing in languages like Smalltalk is that you can care about the problem ... and not so much about satisfying the compiler or knowing about the 10 most recent language features nailed to the language to circumvent problems from early language design. I think we should be more serious ... Marianos may have some valid points we should discuss. So let him tell us why he avoided Traits and what are the issues with tools. Let's listen and learn.
"he last time something serious was new in Smalltalk it was back in 1984" "got killed by Java" "Pharo is not about maintaining the past."
Sorry Stef, but to me these are phrases and not releated to the question about the usefullness of Traits. Language features were not the reasons why Java took up. Back at the time it was small, free, multiplatform and available in the web (applets) when the web took up and no radical change for most programmers. In fact languages features are discussed these days for Java and we should discuss them too... Especially since Smalltalk is not a programming language ... more a dynamic object system on top of a VM with a language built in. Which path would we like to take with Pharo? Adding more language features to be comparable to other languages? Or even become a multilanguage platform/embed new languages similar to JVM and .NET VM (maybe with Helvetia)? What are our goals here? Bye T. -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
Torsten I wrote the following before reading your mail.... Hi guys just to make sure that everybody understand our point of view about traits. I was thinking that we could remove them. Now we have more important point to do and traits can be useful from time to time (but even there we are not bound to them). Now what would be better is: - can we have a simpler/better trait model? - can we plug traits in a kernel? - can we control the induced complexity? Stef still my point is valid.
Just a meta question.....
What about real questions:
- are Traits used these days - in which packages and why - how is the adoption rate
I havent much used them by myself (mostly due to the lack of time to dig into it) but I would like to learn about the current state of Traits (is it used, maintained, usable).
it is used, it is maintained and it is stable.
And yes - we can add lots of (language) features. But we should also discuss/measure/find out if they are usefull. Some of them help us moving forward others may stand in our way. And "Keep it simple" is always a good rule ...
torsten, did you see all the work we did about traits? Adrian rewrote the implementation from scratch it took him around 6 months. Then Damien did a real reimplementation of stream.
One great thing in languages like Smalltalk is that you can care about the problem ... and not so much about satisfying the compiler or knowing about the 10 most recent language features nailed to the language to circumvent problems from early language design.
I think we should be more serious ...
I'm really serious. I'm not doing pharo to have an old Smalltalk-80 languages.
Marianos may have some valid points we should discuss. So let him tell us why he avoided Traits and what are the issues with tools. Let's listen and learn.
"he last time something serious was new in Smalltalk it was back in 1984" "got killed by Java" "Pharo is not about maintaining the past."
Sorry Stef, but to me these are phrases and not releated to the question about the usefullness of Traits.
Indeed, but what I see is that a lot of people spent time on traits.
Language features were not the reasons why Java took up.
certainly not so what?
Back at the time it was small, free, multiplatform and available in the web (applets) when the web took up and no radical change for most programmers.
In fact languages features are discussed these days for Java and we should discuss them too...
so?
Especially since Smalltalk is not a programming language ... more a dynamic object system on top of a VM with a language built in.
Which path would we like to take with Pharo? Adding more language features to be comparable to other languages? Or even become a multilanguage platform/embed new languages similar to JVM and .NET VM (maybe with Helvetia)? What are our goals here?
We are not discussing about features. We want to have first class instance variables because early smalltalkers totally missed their power. We will probably work on a good module system and points for security. for the vision watch the barcelona video, listen the podcast of james robertson or wait for the next esug. Sorry I do not have the time for that now. Stef
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
"he last time something serious was new in Smalltalk it was back in 1984" "got killed by Java" "Pharo is not about maintaining the past."
Sorry Stef, but to me these are phrases and not releated to the question about the usefullness of Traits.
These phrases are related to innovation in our language.
Adding more language features to be comparable to other languages?
It's not about making Smalltalk to be comparable to other languages, it's about trying new ideas. I think Smalltalk is a good platform for that and traits are such an idea. Now, maybe traits implementation is not perfect. Maybe developer support is not good. I think developer support will follow the arrival of Nautilus and Glamour which makes it much simpler to try new ideas. Do we want to keep traits in the system? Maybe not. Do we want to delete them and forget them forever? I certainly don't want that because I see real potential in traits. So, either we keep them in the system or we make it possible to load them. I'm not sure solution #2 is doable and nobody showed interest yet. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Lambdas are relegated to relative obscurity until Java makes them popular by not having them." James Iry
These phrases are related to innovation in our language.
Adding more language features to be comparable to other languages?
It's not about making Smalltalk to be comparable to other languages, it's about trying new ideas. I think Smalltalk is a good platform for that and traits are such an idea. Now, maybe traits implementation is not perfect. Maybe developer support is not good. I think developer support will follow the arrival of Nautilus and Glamour which makes it much simpler to try new ideas.
Do we want to keep traits in the system? Maybe not. Do we want to delete them and forget them forever? I certainly don't want that because I see real potential in traits. So, either we keep them in the system or we make it possible to load them. I'm not sure solution #2 is doable and nobody showed interest yet.
Damien I always wanted to evaluate what andreas did in Squeak and see if we could simplify trait implementation and plug them. Davdi R. did a really good job with his browser for traits support. Coding with it was really good for traits. Now Nautilus is not trait-friendly and you are right that Glamour may change it. Now this is not really important. I prefer to get: - opal - new event - cleaning the UI - bring Ring in the system (new declarative code model) and we will see for trait later. Stef
Hi Damien--
Do we want to keep traits in the system? Maybe not. Do we want to delete them and forget them forever? I certainly don't want that because I see real potential in traits. So, either we keep them in the system or we make it possible to load them. I'm not sure solution #2 is doable and nobody showed interest yet.
For what it's worth, I'm interested and I plan to make traits a loadable module in Spoon. -C -- Craig Latta www.netjam.org/resume +31 6 2757 7177 + 1 415 287 3547
participants (4)
-
Craig Latta -
Damien Cassou -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Torsten Bergmann