Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 Smalltalk
On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
Did your "Smalltalk Code Critic" tell you that or just another one of your biased opinions?
Wow, why so aggressive? Do you really do *not* see the problems that there are in Squeak?
Squeak is a fantastic media authoring environment
It is not. I was a promising *idea* (and part protopype) of a fantastic media enviroment in 1998. But then interestingly everyone decided that the best is to not improve it or make it real.
-- even old versions from years past embarass programs like, say, PowerPoint. It's text-handling is fantastic -- remember the release image delivered with text on the desktop flowing out one text box, following along a loop-de-loop spline and into another text box? What other programs that can do that today in 2012..?
It's a toy example. Adding a character means re-flowing everything. Unusable for larger texts.
In the spirit of Squeak, the original developers delivered a lot of power with little code. But yes, it's a complex domain and so reviewing the code in one afternoon may not meet your "aesthetic eye."
The complexity in Squeak code does *not* come from the domain. Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Sure, such strong opinions are going nowhere. and this thread isn't going to produce anything constructive as it started. Please take a more professional p.o.v. and tell which feature is lacking, which one is superfluous. Then, and only then, start discussing what is unnecessarily complex in current implementation and propose possible alternative implementations. I insist on the features. For example, the fact that every class was cloned to implement internationalization certainly participates to such complexity, but the right question is about the features: should internationalization be optional and un-loadable or is it mandatory? Nicolas Le 22 avril 2012 20:34, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> a écrit :
On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Chris Muller wrote:
Did your "Smalltalk Code Critic" tell you that or just another one of your biased opinions?
Wow, why so aggressive? Do you really do *not* see the problems that there are in Squeak?
Squeak is a fantastic media authoring environment
It is not. I was a promising *idea* (and part protopype) of a fantastic media enviroment in 1998. But then interestingly everyone decided that the best is to not improve it or make it real.
-- even old versions from years past embarass programs like, say, PowerPoint. Â It's text-handling is fantastic -- remember the release image delivered with text on the desktop flowing out one text box, following along a loop-de-loop spline and into another text box? Â What other programs that can do that today in 2012..?
It's a toy example. Adding a character means re-flowing everything. Unusable for larger texts.
In the spirit of Squeak, the original developers delivered a lot of power with little code. But yes, it's a complex domain and so reviewing the code in one afternoon may not meet your "aesthetic eye."
The complexity in Squeak code does *not* come from the domain.
    Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
Hi folks! Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now? Now, the most interesting part is IMHO not discussed - how does the leadership of Pharo view this work? Is it meriting enough to be a blessed project for Pharo? Just curious because it does present an interesting case - an important part being primarily developed in *another* Smalltalk than Pharo (Cuis). Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts? regards, Göran
Hi Göran, On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:43, Göran Krampe wrote:
Hi folks!
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Yes, we should be past that, but just quickly skimming the thread, it seems as if Chris Muller was the first to include the Squeak vs Pharo discussion into this thread.
Now, the most interesting part is IMHO not discussed - how does the leadership of Pharo view this work? Is it meriting enough to be a blessed project for Pharo?
Just curious because it does present an interesting case - an important part being primarily developed in *another* Smalltalk than Pharo (Cuis). Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts?
I am not familiar with the subject, but it seems like a nice editor was written on top of a specific GUI framework on top of Cuis, a nice, clean Smalltalk. The question of porting seems like asking to convert an very GUI intensive app from the Microsoft Windows API to the Apple Cocoa API, or vice versa. How realistic can that be, without forking ? Sven
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:08, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:43, Göran Krampe wrote:
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Yes, we should be past that, but just quickly skimming the thread, it seems as if Chris Muller was the first to include the Squeak vs Pharo discussion into this thread.
No, it was Marcus, be fair please. But I agree with Marcus observations here. Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
On 23 Apr 2012, at 12:25, Janko Mivšek wrote:
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:08, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:43, Göran Krampe wrote:
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Yes, we should be past that, but just quickly skimming the thread, it seems as if Chris Muller was the first to include the Squeak vs Pharo discussion into this thread.
No, it was Marcus, be fair please.
No, he responded to Chris' mail, which was, let's say somewhat biased and suggestive in the context of the discussion. How would you react if I said, in a normal discussion about some technical or design aspect of Aida/Web that 'nobody should bother with an alternative web framework since we already have Seaside which is perfect' ? Sven PS: (The qoute above is *not* what I think at all, about either Aida/Web or Seaside ;-)
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:37, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 12:25, Janko Mivšek wrote:
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:08, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:43, Göran Krampe wrote:
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Yes, we should be past that, but just quickly skimming the thread, it seems as if Chris Muller was the first to include the Squeak vs Pharo discussion into this thread.
No, it was Marcus, be fair please.
No, he responded to Chris' mail, which was, let's say somewhat biased and suggestive in the context of the discussion.
How would you react if I said, in a normal discussion about some technical or design aspect of Aida/Web that 'nobody should bother with an alternative web framework since we already have Seaside which is perfect' ?
Well, this is prime example of how nowadays society in general ( not just in our community) we are not able to react even to a bit provocative observations with argument-only responses. Specially we as technical profession should be able to stay on argumented debate even in with emotions present. Anyone remember the techniques of disputes in European medieval universities? Then it was normal to be angry and emotional, but you should "ride you own anger" to get an energy for as better as possible disputing with your opponent, which mostly ends up with the best result. Much better than with isolated effort, without such dispute and without all the energy in emotions there. Emotions are therefore not to be suppressed but canalized towards the better end!
PS: (The qoute above is *not* what I think at all, about either Aida/Web or Seaside ;-)
I know I know :) Best regards Janko -- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
Am 23.04.2012 um 13:27 schrieb Janko Mivšek:
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:37, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 12:25, Janko Mivšek wrote:
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:08, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:43, Göran Krampe wrote:
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Yes, we should be past that, but just quickly skimming the thread, it seems as if Chris Muller was the first to include the Squeak vs Pharo discussion into this thread.
No, it was Marcus, be fair please.
No, he responded to Chris' mail, which was, let's say somewhat biased and suggestive in the context of the discussion.
How would you react if I said, in a normal discussion about some technical or design aspect of Aida/Web that 'nobody should bother with an alternative web framework since we already have Seaside which is perfect' ?
Well, this is prime example of how nowadays society in general ( not ...
Well, let me recap. Someone said something less polite. Another one responded in an equal unpolite way (that's two). Then there is talk about the one who said something (that's three). And a few steps after we already have global spanning theory of a problem (including all)? I'm not sure if I just don't get it but it sounds like non-sense to me. At least I'm sure it adds nothing! Norbert
PS: (The qoute above is *not* what I think at all, about either Aida/Web or Seaside ;-)
I know I know :)
Best regards Janko
-- Janko Mivšek Aida/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si
Am 23.04.2012 um 12:25 schrieb Janko Mivšek:
Dne 23. 04. 2012 12:08, piše Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:43, Göran Krampe wrote:
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Yes, we should be past that, but just quickly skimming the thread, it seems as if Chris Muller was the first to include the Squeak vs Pharo discussion into this thread.
No, it was Marcus, be fair please. But I agree with Marcus observations here.
It doesn't really matter who started it. We all like to come over this. It can happen and the only thing making it worse is to talk about the fact that it happened. Regarding the styled text editor it is highly bound to the changes that have been made to Cuis. So there is close to no chance to have a common codebase. It will be a fork anyway. And what I heard it will be a lot of work to adapt it anyway. Norbert
On 04/23/2012 12:43 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote:
It doesn't really matter who started it. We all like to come over this. It can happen and the only thing making it worse is to talk about the fact that it happened.
Yeah, I don't care either about who started it - I am just tired of it :). We are all the same family, the both communities overlap a lot. For example, what am I? Am I a Squeak-guy? Or a Pharo-guy? Or an Amber-guy?
Regarding the styled text editor it is highly bound to the changes that have been made to Cuis. So there is close to no chance to have a common codebase. It will be a fork anyway. And what I heard it will be a lot of work to adapt it anyway.
Ok, then the "interesting aspect" is moot, or at least ... a different question - who wants to port? :) regards, Göran
It doesn't really matter who started it. We all like to come over this. It can happen and the only thing making it worse is to talk about the fact that it happened.
Yeah, I don't care either about who started it - I am just tired of it :).
May be other people are tired by other aspects? No? I guess so. We have a vision and people can help making it true or not. :) But our goal is to support business emerge (with our little mean) but we try hard. Stef
Hey all! On 04/23/2012 03:43 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
It doesn't really matter who started it. We all like to come over this. It can happen and the only thing making it worse is to talk about the fact that it happened.
Yeah, I don't care either about who started it - I am just tired of it :).
May be other people are tired by other aspects? No? I guess so.
I don't follow. What do you mean?
We have a vision and people can help making it true or not. :) But our goal is to support business emerge (with our little mean) but we try hard.
I know and I am all behind it, 100%. The thing is, this "history" behind the Squeak/Pharo divide is still lurking between the lines and I (personally) am tired of it. For example, I often get the feeling that my posts to this list raise replies as if I am some kind of "outsider", just because I was heavily involved in Squeak earlier or something. I am a Pharoer too. I may be more of a bystander these days than a contributor (since I don't have a lot of time to spend) - but I am only using *Pharo* these days, not Squeak. Yup, sorry Squeak, but it is just the reality. I *still* wish the best for Squeak though, and all other open source or commercial efforts in the Smalltalk arena. I think it would be nice if we all could be a little bit more positive and inclusive, especially the people who are prominent in our (overlapping) communities - you set the example. :) I really don't see any gain in Pharo spewing negatives over Squeak, Squeak is still the inheritage of Pharo and I for one am proud of the friendliness of the Smalltalk community. Nor of course see I any gain in spewing in the other direction, it goes both ways. Now, I suspect this light criticism wrapped up in smileys and all, and with all the good intentions, will still lead to negative replies. But I hope not. Perhaps time to simply move on? ;) regards, Göran PS. I love all the momentum in Pharo right now, it all looks very good, and I am itching digging into 1.4! Superb work.
I stop reacting to these things long ago. It just a waste of time. I don't care if people prefer A over B or C over D, as long as they are not evangelizing me make same choice. I never spew on Squeak or people, since i am part of community.. and its like spewing on myself at the end... Apart from it, lying the facts about quality of some smelly Squeak code (and consequently Pharo as well, since it inherits from it). There is no need to divide on camps. Bad code is bad code, no matter if it is in Squeak or Pharo. As i told before, i prefer to call 'crap' what is crap. And it is completely neutral towards fork(s), and based only on quality of code in question and my bias towards better solutions :) And i expect that pointing out to this should not provoke negative emotions, but an efforts to fix it (or discussion how to fix it). And i DO respect an effort of people who implemented things we using.. Even if implementation not perfect. But hey, we are here to fix it! And pointing out to flaw is a first step. 2012/4/23 Göran Krampe <goran@krampe.se>:
Hey all!
On 04/23/2012 03:43 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
It doesn't really matter who started it. We all like to come over this. It can happen and the only thing making it worse is to talk about the fact that it happened.
Yeah, I don't care either about who started it - I am just tired of it :).
May be other people are tired by other aspects? No? I guess so.
I don't follow. What do you mean?
We have a vision and people can help making it true or not. :) But our goal is to support business emerge (with our little mean) but we try hard.
I know and I am all behind it, 100%. The thing is, this "history" behind the Squeak/Pharo divide is still lurking between the lines and I (personally) am tired of it.
For example, I often get the feeling that my posts to this list raise replies as if I am some kind of "outsider", just because I was heavily involved in Squeak earlier or something.
I am a Pharoer too. I may be more of a bystander these days than a contributor (since I don't have a lot of time to spend) - but I am only using *Pharo* these days, not Squeak. Yup, sorry Squeak, but it is just the reality. I *still* wish the best for Squeak though, and all other open source or commercial efforts in the Smalltalk arena.
I think it would be nice if we all could be a little bit more positive and inclusive, especially the people who are prominent in our (overlapping) communities - you set the example. :)
I really don't see any gain in Pharo spewing negatives over Squeak, Squeak is still the inheritage of Pharo and I for one am proud of the friendliness of the Smalltalk community. Nor of course see I any gain in spewing in the other direction, it goes both ways.
Now, I suspect this light criticism wrapped up in smileys and all, and with all the good intentions, will still lead to negative replies. But I hope not. Perhaps time to simply move on? ;)
regards, Göran
PS. I love all the momentum in Pharo right now, it all looks very good, and I am itching digging into 1.4! Superb work.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
Hi folks!
Having skimmed this thread I must say that I am amazed how easy we fall into Squeak vs Pharo flamewars - haven't we gotten past that by now?
Now, the most interesting part is IMHO not discussed - how does the leadership of Pharo view this work? Is it meriting enough to be a blessed project for Pharo?
what are we talking about? If somebody want to port this work to pharo he is more than welcome.
Just curious because it does present an interesting case - an important part being primarily developed in *another* Smalltalk than Pharo (Cuis).
? You are not talking about CUIS text editor?
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts?
I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it.
regards, Göran
Hi! On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts?
I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it.
Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis). The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining everything for ourselves, right? I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really applicable in this case. regards, Göran
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts?
I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it.
Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis).
The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining everything for ourselves, right?
But this is not that simple since Cuis layout is different and juan changed a lot the code. We are also cleaning morphic so there is no magic.
I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really applicable in this case.
Kind of I already talked at ESUG last year about that with bernahrd.
regards, Göran
On 04/23/2012 05:02 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts?
I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it.
Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis).
The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining everything for ourselves, right?
But this is not that simple since Cuis layout is different and juan changed a lot the code. We are also cleaning morphic so there is no magic.
I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really applicable in this case.
Kind of I already talked at ESUG last year about that with bernahrd.
Ok, good! cheers, Göran
Goran (and others) I know that you know but let me repeat it. Our goal is to push as much as we can so that other people that us can make money building software with Pharo. We want to get pharo bring money in the community and that people can make a living with it. I would love to be invited to celebrate the wealth of company having success with Pharo. Now we do not have that much money to pay people for improving the system. May be marcus is ranting because he sees that with a bit of care in the past the base system would not force us to spend a lot of energy improving it and we could focus on the next generation. Because this is what we want to do, invent the future: new compiler, first class instance variable, micro kernel⦠We are getting there but we are fixing a lot while doing that. A lot and more. As a researcher we could just create our own little smalltalk and be happy and life forever. Now improving Pharo is a tedious and ****difficult****, not bold, â¦.. task. Now we welcome people that want to help pushing in that direction and we want to go as fast as we can (because time passes and we are getting old :)). Stef: I'm clean :)
On 23 Apr 2012, at 16:04, Göran Krampe wrote:
Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis).
Göran, You know that many packages, even some very large ones, are reasonably portable. But I guess portability kind of stops when non-trivial GUI usage is involved. Also, as Pharo is making more and more changes, portability will become harder and harder until it is mostly gone. There are only two solutions: - write your own code to a least common feature set and miss all the new APIs - halt all non-compatible changes in Pharo and stop its evolution Neither are attractive options I guess. Sven
Hi Göran, Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not straightforward but I consider it possible. Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to Cuis so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can be done is the following: Split Cuis into three parts, a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the Cuis tools b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on â this is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent years cleaning it c) the Smalltalk kernel below The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, one for Squeak and one for Pharo. Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text Editor and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code. I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, of course! ;-) I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible to develop substantial components as you called it â thank you for that as well â in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-) Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask everyone who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the Styled Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run on your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you! Peace, Bernhard P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish different threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my announcement posting has caused. Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe:
Hi!
On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts?
I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it.
Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis).
The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining everything for ourselves, right?
I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really applicable in this case.
regards, Göran
Would the Spoon project be relevant for this scenario? Craig mentioned on the Spoon list that he is working with Cuis. On 4/23/12 11:53 AM, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
Hi Göran,
Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not straightforward but I consider it possible.
Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to Cuis so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can be done is the following: Split Cuis into three parts, a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the Cuis tools b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on â this is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent years cleaning it c) the Smalltalk kernel below
The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, one for Squeak and one for Pharo.
Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text Editor and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code.
I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, of course! ;-)
I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible to develop substantial components as you called it â thank you for that as well â in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-)
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask everyone who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the Styled Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run on your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you!
Peace, Bernhard
P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish different threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my announcement posting has caused.
Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe:
Hi!
On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts? I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it. Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis).
The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining everything for ourselves, right?
I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really applicable in this case.
regards, Göran
Quoting David Graham <david@unthinkable.org>:
Would the Spoon project be relevant for this scenario? Craig mentioned on the Spoon list that he is working with Cuis.
Hi David, I think Spoon could be very useful. I'm waiting for some tutorial or howto on how to use Spoon for this. Cheers, Juan Vuletich
On 4/23/12 11:53 AM, Bernhard Pieber wrote:
Hi Göran,
Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not straightforward but I consider it possible.
Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to Cuis so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can be done is the following: Split Cuis into three parts, a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the Cuis tools b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on - this is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent years cleaning it c) the Smalltalk kernel below
The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, one for Squeak and one for Pharo.
Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text Editor and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code.
I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, of course! ;-)
I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible to develop substantial components as you called it - thank you for that as well - in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-)
Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask everyone who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the Styled Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run on your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you!
Peace, Bernhard
P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish different threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my announcement posting has caused.
Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe:
Hi!
On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. Any ideas or thoughts? I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and make it getting real. It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. So can you help us to get focused? People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a roadmap and we will do it. Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in this case Cuis).
The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining everything for ourselves, right?
I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really applicable in this case.
regards, Göran
On 4/23/12 10:28 PM, "Juan Vuletich (mail lists)" <juanlists@jvuletich.org> wrote:
I think Spoon could be very useful. I'm waiting for some tutorial or howto on how to use Spoon for this.
Craig ? Several of us wait a tutorial of how you got from Spoon to Cuis .... Edgar
Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not straightforward but I consider it possible.
Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to Cuis so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can be done is the following: Split Cuis into three parts, a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the Cuis tools b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on â this is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent years cleaning it c) the Smalltalk kernel below
good idea
The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, one for Squeak and one for Pharo.
Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text Editor and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code.
I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, of course! ;-)
I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible to develop substantial components as you called it â thank you for that as well â in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-)
Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not straightforward but I consider it possible.
Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to Cuis so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can be done is the following: Split Cuis into three parts, a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the Cuis tools b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on â this is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent years cleaning it c) the Smalltalk kernel below
good idea
The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, one for Squeak and one for Pharo.
Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text Editor and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code.
I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, of course! ;-)
I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible to develop substantial components as you called it â thank you for that as well â in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-)
Bernhard, With regards to sharing code between dialects, I'd like to recommend that you look into porting Cypress to Cuis (I'm willing to help as much as I can). The Cypress project is aimed from the get go to enable sharing of packages between Smalltalk dialects with a recognition that possibly the most important aspect is a shared VCS (git/github). If you look at the current code base in Cypress, you will see a reference implementation written against Pharo. The reference implementation is a work in progress and the initial implementation was done for Amber[2]. Cypress has Monticello-like packages, but other than taking a few ideas from Monticello (definitions, packages and snapshots ... more than a few:)) the code base is independent of Monticello. The fact that Cypress runs on top of Amber (sans file system access) speaks volumes for it's portability. To paraphrase a point from my STIC talk[3] on this subject: Cypress is not intended to be the primary version control system for any dialect, however, if you want to share code between dialects you should allow your developers to import and export code using the Cypress package format. If you are interested, there are bits and pieces of code in a few other projects that I would want to pull into the Cypress project and couple other things that I'd like to move out of the Cypress project before tackling another port ... We can correspond via private email if you'd like to take me up on the offer of help:) Dale [1] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress [2] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/amber-cypress [3] http://portal.sliderocket.com/vmware/STIC-2012-Practical-Git-for-Smalltalk ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Bernhard Pieber" <bernhard@pieber.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:53:35 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 Smalltalk | | Hi Göran, | | Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the | Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have | not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not | straightforward but I consider it possible. | | Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is | loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to Cuis | so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can be | done is the following: | Split Cuis into three parts, | a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the | Cuis tools | b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on â this | is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent | years cleaning it | c) the Smalltalk kernel below | | The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it | has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for | Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you | will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, | one for Squeak and one for Pharo. | | Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text Editor | and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite | to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code. | | I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG | and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of | funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, | of course! ;-) | | I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible to | develop substantial components as you called it â thank you for that | as well â in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-) | | Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask everyone | who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the Styled | Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run on | your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you! | | Peace, | Bernhard | | P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish different | threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my announcement | posting has caused. | | Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe: | > Hi! | > | > On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | >>> Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less optimal. | >>> Any ideas or thoughts? | >> | >> I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap and | >> make it getting real. | >> It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. | >> So can you help us to get focused? | >> People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have a | >> roadmap | >> and we will do it. | > | > Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community | > wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this | > case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in | > this case Cuis). | > | > The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't | > leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) | > can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining | > everything for ourselves, right? | > | > I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies | > indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for | > Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really | > applicable in this case. | > | > regards, Göran | > | | |
Bernhard and Juan, I was curious enough about Cypress and Cuis to start a Cypress port to Cuis[1]. Loaded code and started working through tests: 19 run, 6 passed, 3 failed, 10 errors We'll see if I get any farther tonight:) Dale [1] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/cuis-cypress ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Dale Henrichs" <dhenrich@vmware.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 1:57:57 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 Smalltalk | | Bernhard, | | With regards to sharing code between dialects, I'd like to recommend | that you look into porting Cypress to Cuis (I'm willing to help as | much as I can). | | The Cypress project is aimed from the get go to enable sharing of | packages between Smalltalk dialects with a recognition that possibly | the most important aspect is a shared VCS (git/github). | | If you look at the current code base in Cypress, you will see a | reference implementation written against Pharo. The reference | implementation is a work in progress and the initial implementation | was done for Amber[2]. | | Cypress has Monticello-like packages, but other than taking a few | ideas from Monticello (definitions, packages and snapshots ... more | than a few:)) the code base is independent of Monticello. The fact | that Cypress runs on top of Amber (sans file system access) speaks | volumes for it's portability. | | To paraphrase a point from my STIC talk[3] on this subject: | | Cypress is not intended to be the primary version control | system for any dialect, however, if you want to share code | between dialects you should allow your developers to import | and export code using the Cypress package format. | | If you are interested, there are bits and pieces of code in a few | other projects that I would want to pull into the Cypress project | and couple other things that I'd like to move out of the Cypress | project before tackling another port ... | | We can correspond via private email if you'd like to take me up on | the offer of help:) | | Dale | | [1] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress | [2] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/amber-cypress | [3] | http://portal.sliderocket.com/vmware/STIC-2012-Practical-Git-for-Smalltalk | | ----- Original Message ----- | | From: "Bernhard Pieber" <bernhard@pieber.com> | | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:53:35 AM | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 | | Smalltalk | | | | Hi Göran, | | | | Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the | | Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have | | not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not | | straightforward but I consider it possible. | | | | Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is | | loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to | | Cuis | | so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can | | be | | done is the following: | | Split Cuis into three parts, | | a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the | | Cuis tools | | b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on â | | this | | is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent | | years cleaning it | | c) the Smalltalk kernel below | | | | The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it | | has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for | | Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you | | will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, | | one for Squeak and one for Pharo. | | | | Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text | | Editor | | and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite | | to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code. | | | | I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG | | and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of | | funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, | | of course! ;-) | | | | I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible | | to | | develop substantial components as you called it â thank you for | | that | | as well â in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-) | | | | Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask | | everyone | | who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the Styled | | Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run on | | your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you! | | | | Peace, | | Bernhard | | | | P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish different | | threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my announcement | | posting has caused. | | | | Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe: | | > Hi! | | > | | > On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | | >>> Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less | | >>> optimal. | | >>> Any ideas or thoughts? | | >> | | >> I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap | | >> and | | >> make it getting real. | | >> It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. | | >> So can you help us to get focused? | | >> People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have | | >> a | | >> roadmap | | >> and we will do it. | | > | | > Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community | | > wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this | | > case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in | | > this case Cuis). | | > | | > The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't | | > leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) | | > can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining | | > everything for ourselves, right? | | > | | > I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies | | > indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for | | > Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really | | > applicable in this case. | | > | | > regards, Göran | | > | | | | | | |
Hi Dale, Quoting Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com>:
Bernhard and Juan,
I was curious enough about Cypress and Cuis to start a Cypress port to Cuis[1]. Loaded code and started working through tests:
19 run, 6 passed, 3 failed, 10 errors
We'll see if I get any farther tonight:)
Dale
This is great, thank you! I took a look at your format when thinking on how to do Cuis package format, and I think that for a Cuis specific package format, a single file per package will be easier to diff / merge by Git. But I really welcome and thank you for this format for cross-dialect packages! Cheers, Juan Vuletich
----- Original Message ----- | From: "Dale Henrichs" <dhenrich@vmware.com> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 1:57:57 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 Smalltalk | | Bernhard, | | With regards to sharing code between dialects, I'd like to recommend | that you look into porting Cypress to Cuis (I'm willing to help as | much as I can). | | The Cypress project is aimed from the get go to enable sharing of | packages between Smalltalk dialects with a recognition that possibly | the most important aspect is a shared VCS (git/github). | | If you look at the current code base in Cypress, you will see a | reference implementation written against Pharo. The reference | implementation is a work in progress and the initial implementation | was done for Amber[2]. | | Cypress has Monticello-like packages, but other than taking a few | ideas from Monticello (definitions, packages and snapshots ... more | than a few:)) the code base is independent of Monticello. The fact | that Cypress runs on top of Amber (sans file system access) speaks | volumes for it's portability. | | To paraphrase a point from my STIC talk[3] on this subject: | | Cypress is not intended to be the primary version control | system for any dialect, however, if you want to share code | between dialects you should allow your developers to import | and export code using the Cypress package format. | | If you are interested, there are bits and pieces of code in a few | other projects that I would want to pull into the Cypress project | and couple other things that I'd like to move out of the Cypress | project before tackling another port ... | | We can correspond via private email if you'd like to take me up on | the offer of help:) | | Dale | | [1] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress | [2] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/amber-cypress | [3] | http://portal.sliderocket.com/vmware/STIC-2012-Practical-Git-for-Smalltalk | | ----- Original Message ----- | | From: "Bernhard Pieber" <bernhard@pieber.com> | | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:53:35 AM | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 | | Smalltalk | | | | Hi Göran, | | | | Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the | | Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still have | | not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is not | | straightforward but I consider it possible. | | | | Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which is | | loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to | | Cuis | | so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think can | | be | | done is the following: | | Split Cuis into three parts, | | a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like the | | Cuis tools | | b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on ? | | this | | is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan spent | | years cleaning it | | c) the Smalltalk kernel below | | | | The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. And it | | has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages for | | Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition you | | will probably need small Cuis portability packages done manually, | | one for Squeak and one for Pharo. | | | | Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text | | Editor | | and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a prerequisite | | to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code. | | | | I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach ESUG | | and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other sources of | | funding are highly welcome and could speed things up considerably, | | of course! ;-) | | | | I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be possible | | to | | develop substantial components as you called it ? thank you for | | that | | as well ? in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-) | | | | Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask | | everyone | | who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the Styled | | Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run on | | your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you! | | | | Peace, | | Bernhard | | | | P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish different | | threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my announcement | | posting has caused. | | | | Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe: | | > Hi! | | > | | > On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | | >>> Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less | | >>> optimal. | | >>> Any ideas or thoughts? | | >> | | >> I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our roadmap | | >> and | | >> make it getting real. | | >> It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for real. | | >> So can you help us to get focused? | | >> People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We have | | >> a | | >> roadmap | | >> and we will do it. | | > | | > Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo community | | > wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this | | > case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo (in | | > this case Cuis). | | > | | > The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this doesn't | | > leverage the team already around this editor, right? We (Pharo) | | > can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining | | > everything for ourselves, right? | | > | | > I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies | | > indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for | | > Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really | | > applicable in this case. | | > | | > regards, Göran | | > | | | | | | |
Juan, Exactly! BTW, I've got just a little more work to do before Cuis will be able to read and write Cypress:) Dale ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Juan Vuletich (mail lists)" <juanlists@jvuletich.org> | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 4:55:26 AM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis 4.0 Smalltalk | | Hi Dale, | | Quoting Dale Henrichs <dhenrich@vmware.com>: | | > Bernhard and Juan, | > | > I was curious enough about Cypress and Cuis to start a Cypress port | > to Cuis[1]. Loaded code and started working through tests: | > | > 19 run, 6 passed, 3 failed, 10 errors | > | > We'll see if I get any farther tonight:) | > | > Dale | > | > [1] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/cuis-cypress | | This is great, thank you! | | I took a look at your format when thinking on how to do Cuis package | format, and I think that for a Cuis specific package format, a single | file per package will be easier to diff / merge by Git. | | But I really welcome and thank you for this format for cross-dialect | packages! | | Cheers, | Juan Vuletich | | > ----- Original Message ----- | > | From: "Dale Henrichs" <dhenrich@vmware.com> | > | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | > | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 1:57:57 PM | > | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis | > | 4.0 | > Smalltalk | > | | > | Bernhard, | > | | > | With regards to sharing code between dialects, I'd like to | > | recommend | > | that you look into porting Cypress to Cuis (I'm willing to help | > | as | > | much as I can). | > | | > | The Cypress project is aimed from the get go to enable sharing of | > | packages between Smalltalk dialects with a recognition that | > | possibly | > | the most important aspect is a shared VCS (git/github). | > | | > | If you look at the current code base in Cypress, you will see a | > | reference implementation written against Pharo. The reference | > | implementation is a work in progress and the initial | > | implementation | > | was done for Amber[2]. | > | | > | Cypress has Monticello-like packages, but other than taking a few | > | ideas from Monticello (definitions, packages and snapshots ... | > | more | > | than a few:)) the code base is independent of Monticello. The | > | fact | > | that Cypress runs on top of Amber (sans file system access) | > | speaks | > | volumes for it's portability. | > | | > | To paraphrase a point from my STIC talk[3] on this subject: | > | | > | Cypress is not intended to be the primary version control | > | system for any dialect, however, if you want to share code | > | between dialects you should allow your developers to import | > | and export code using the Cypress package format. | > | | > | If you are interested, there are bits and pieces of code in a few | > | other projects that I would want to pull into the Cypress project | > | and couple other things that I'd like to move out of the Cypress | > | project before tackling another port ... | > | | > | We can correspond via private email if you'd like to take me up | > | on | > | the offer of help:) | > | | > | Dale | > | | > | [1] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/Cypress | > | [2] https://github.com/CampSmalltalk/amber-cypress | > | [3] | > | http://portal.sliderocket.com/vmware/STIC-2012-Practical-Git-for-Smalltalk | > | | > | ----- Original Message ----- | > | | From: "Bernhard Pieber" <bernhard@pieber.com> | > | | To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr | > | | Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:53:35 AM | > | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Styled Text Editor for Cuis | > | | 4.0 | > | | Smalltalk | > | | | > | | Hi Göran, | > | | | > | | Thanks for your question! I have posted the announcement of the | > | | Styled Text Editor to the Pharo list as well because I still | > | | have | > | | not given up on the idea to port it to Squeak and Pharo. It is | > | | not | > | | straightforward but I consider it possible. | > | | | > | | Currently the Styled Text Editor is an external package which | > | | is | > | | loaded on top of Cuis 4.0. The API it uses is quite specific to | > | | Cuis | > | | so to port it alone is probably too much effort. What I think | > | | can | > | | be | > | | done is the following: | > | | Split Cuis into three parts, | > | | a) the parts which are not needed for Styled Text Editor, like | > | | the | > | | Cuis tools | > | | b) the parts of Cuis Morphic the Styled Text Editor depends on | > | | ? | > | | this | > | | is in my opinion the most valuable part of Cuis because Juan | > | | spent | > | | years cleaning it | > | | c) the Smalltalk kernel below | > | | | > | | The idea is to port only part b) and the Styled Text Editor. | > | | And it | > | | has to be done automatically by a tool which creates packages | > | | for | > | | Squeak and Pharo, always from the latest code base. In addition | > | | you | > | | will probably need small Cuis portability packages done | > | | manually, | > | | one for Squeak and one for Pharo. | > | | | > | | Being able to always load the latest code base of Styled Text | > | | Editor | > | | and Cuis Morphic as an external package in Pharo is a | > | | prerequisite | > | | to look into possibilities of sharing more of the code. | > | | | > | | I plan to write a more detailed proposal and then to approach | > | | ESUG | > | | and ask for support for the funding. Any ideas for other | > | | sources of | > | | funding are highly welcome and could speed things up | > | | considerably, | > | | of course! ;-) | > | | | > | | I for one have not given up on the idea that it might be | > | | possible | > | | to | > | | develop substantial components as you called it ? thank you for | > | | that | > | | as well ? in a more Squeak-dialect-independent way. ;-) | > | | | > | | Finally, I would like to take the opportunity and kindly ask | > | | everyone | > | | who has not done so yet: Please check out Cuis 4.0 and the | > | | Styled | > | | Text Editor and give us feedback, even if it does not (yet) run | > | | on | > | | your favourite Squeak dialect! Thank you! | > | | | > | | Peace, | > | | Bernhard | > | | | > | | P.S. Thanks to Göran and Janko for trying to establish | > | | different | > | | threads for the rather off-topic discussions that my | > | | announcement | > | | posting has caused. | > | | | > | | Am 23.04.2012 um 16:04 schrieb Göran Krampe: | > | | > Hi! | > | | > | > | | > On 04/23/2012 03:40 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: | > | | >>> Just cloning it off into Pharo and forking seems... less | > | | >>> optimal. | > | | >>> Any ideas or thoughts? | > | | >> | > | | >> I do not get what you mean. I just want to work on our | > | | >> roadmap | > | | >> and | > | | >> make it getting real. | > | | >> It is hard enough to get some momentum and to deliver for | > | | >> real. | > | | >> So can you help us to get focused? | > | | >> People can do what they want. I wrote a vision document. We | > | | >> have | > | | >> a | > | | >> roadmap | > | | >> and we will do it. | > | | > | > | | > Ok, let me clarify. I was just wondering how the Pharo | > | | > community | > | | > wants to handle a case where a substantial component (in this | > | | > case, this new editor) is not *primarily* developed in Pharo | > | | > (in | > | | > this case Cuis). | > | | > | > | | > The simple route is to just copy and fork. But IMHO this | > | | > doesn't | > | | > leverage the team already around this editor, right? We | > | | > (Pharo) | > | | > can't just go around and forking everything and maintaining | > | | > everything for ourselves, right? | > | | > | > | | > I just got interested in that problem - now, later replies | > | | > indicated that it would still need a substantial rewrite for | > | | > Pharo, so perhaps the situation I am describing is not really | > | | > applicable in this case. | > | | > | > | | > regards, Göran | > | | > | > | | | > | | | > | | | > | | > | > | | | |
Did your "Smalltalk Code Critic" tell you that or just another one of your biased opinions?
Wow, why so aggressive?
Not aggressive, just curious about what your point is Marcus? What is your point when you say something like, "isn't it amazing how bad Squeak is?" What does it mean when someone characterizes as "anarchy that runs in circles?" Or, another one I read recently on a blog comment: "Squeak is known to burn your eyes out. You should try Pharo!" It's all non-specific, non-helpful, antagonistic, fuddy-duddy nonsense. I've been rooting for Pharo (still am) and supporting it by blemishing my code on account of your whimsical renames, etc., so it will continue to run there. If you would lead a reciprocation of this sort of good will rather than divisive idle-commentary, it could be more productive.
Do you really do *not* see the problems that there are in Squeak?
Of course I do, that's why I'm part of a group that's addressing them. I also happen to see problems with Pharo and some of the wrong decisions that have been made, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to disparage your hard work.
-- even old versions from years past embarass programs like, say, PowerPoint. Â It's text-handling is fantastic -- remember the release image delivered with text on the desktop flowing out one text box, following along a loop-de-loop spline and into another text box? Â What other programs that can do that today in 2012..?
It's a toy example. Adding a character means re-flowing everything. Unusable for larger texts.
"Larger texts", a la gigantic Word documents from the 90's thru today? We should be moving toward smaller bits of linked-information anyway, like what I've done with MaOffice for Squeak. Anyway, it doesn't matter -- you're right, it was just an example illustrating the capability. - Chris
participants (14)
-
Bernhard Pieber -
Chris Muller -
Dale Henrichs -
David Graham -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Göran Krampe -
Igor Stasenko -
Janko Mivšek -
Juan Vuletich (mail lists) -
Marcus Denker -
Nicolas Cellier -
Norbert Hartl -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Sven Van Caekenberghe