Re: [Pharo-project] Stupid question about Fuel
On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
And wish made experiments if this Foo.fuel could be loaded into different fork as Squeak, Cuis having Fuel into.
I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a binary code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis. And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to improve one system and make sure that system has a future? Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On 4/15/12 8:50 AM, "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a binary code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis.
And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to improve one system and make sure that system has a future?
Marcus
And if none of actual forks have all as I wish? All have some good and all have some problem for me. It's why try to learn from all here and all in Squeak and from Juan. Don't' sell me the fish, teach me to fishing. Edgar
Hi Edgar, some weeks ago I played with an idea to have Pharo Kernel as the base of Squeak. I compared the images to see how much work it would constitute. I found out two things: - it would not require too much work. It would be not simple but it is possible - there is no reason to do that I can imagine Squeak as an extension of Pharo but I do not see the purpose and target users of the resultant system. -- Pavel On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2005@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/12 8:50 AM, "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a binary code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis.
And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to improve one system and make sure that system has a future?
Marcus
And if none of actual forks have all as I wish? All have some good and all have some problem for me. It's why try to learn from all here and all in Squeak and from Juan.
Don't' sell me the fish, teach me to fishing.
Edgar
On 4/15/12 12:02 PM, "Pavel Krivanek" <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com> wrote:
I can imagine Squeak as an extension of Pharo but I do not see the purpose and target users of the resultant system.
Today we read
Some is interested in using Smalltalk for prototyping of games. http://www.gamedev.net/topic/623380-game-programming-in-smalltalk/
I think we should respond very constructively on gamedev.net to entice gamers to try Smalltalk. Programmers are coming to appreciate dynamic languages and we can capitalize on that.
Go Smalltalk, Aik-Siong Koh
A ideal all purpose system IMHO is Pharo Kernel as base, with all new ideas Pharo bring us. Cuis is the best implementation of Morph, but lacks compatibility. You need re think all and make from zero Squeak is a mess, no doubt about. But have necessary backwards compatibility (for me). I can't do Morphic games without grab Morphs with Halo. A simple thing like my SmartTrashMorph ported to Cuis or to Pharo takes too much time to do. For young people like most here caring about Web 2.0, Pharo is the answer and Markus is right, we need focus on better Pharo. But for old people like me, need responses NOW , and know wish more as Web 2.0. When GsoC ends, several projects give me 95% of info for learn how to build my ideal system. As PharoKernel builder and developer, I ask for tutorials for fools. Cheers Edgar
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2005@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/12 12:02 PM, "Pavel Krivanek" <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com> wrote:
I can imagine Squeak as an extension of Pharo but I do not see the purpose and target users of the resultant system.
Today we read
Some is interested in using Smalltalk for prototyping of games. http://www.gamedev.net/topic/623380-game-programming-in-smalltalk/
I think we should respond very constructively on gamedev.net to entice gamers to try Smalltalk. Programmers are coming to appreciate dynamic languages and we can capitalize on that.
Go Smalltalk, Aik-Siong Koh
A ideal all purpose system IMHO is Pharo Kernel as base, with all new ideas Pharo bring us.
Cuis is the best implementation of Morph, but lacks compatibility. You need re think all and make from zero
Squeak is a mess, no doubt about. But have necessary backwards compatibility (for me). I can't do Morphic games without grab Morphs with Halo. A simple thing like my SmartTrashMorph ported to Cuis or to Pharo takes too much time to do.
For young people like most here caring about Web 2.0, Pharo is the answer and Markus is right, we need focus on better Pharo.
But for old people like me, need responses NOW , and know wish more as Web 2.0.
When GsoC ends, several projects give me 95% of info for learn how to build my ideal system.
As PharoKernel builder and developer, I ask for tutorials for fools.
Cheers
Edgar
As far as I remember, the last big discussion about Squeak and Pharo joining was "Meeting Report for 8/18/2010": http://forum.world.st/Meeting-Report-for-8-18-2010-tt2332389.html#none We may be happy that this two forks share the same virtual machine. I didn't see any real Squeak vision and nothing changed from that time. You may try to change it and convince Squeak community about some. Cheers, -- Pavel
On 4/15/12 2:53 PM, "Pavel Krivanek" <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com> wrote:
We may be happy that this two forks share the same virtual machine. I didn't see any real Squeak vision and nothing changed from that time. You may try to change it and convince Squeak community about some.
Cheers, -- Pavel
I running for the Board this year and if I become elected, try to convince SOB members to wake up of comatose status of Squeak. You was right, Pharo have a vision and SOB members complain about Andreas not leading the community. Also I wish Andreas come back, but is time to grow up. Cheers Edgar P.S. Apple should survive Steve pass away .....
On 4/15/12 6:14 PM, "Stéphane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
there are halos in Pharo.
Can you as stupid example grab a Browser window , duplicate and rotate it in no more as two clicks? Maybe I do not know Pharo well... Give me a Pharo image which behave as Squeak for Morph in the surface and have all deeper as clear as Juan Cuis and I sign. And I atart to like Pharo , only need some PharoForGames in Morphic NOW. Cheers Edgar
You can get the halos but not all the time in your face. Click + shift + option on mac bring the halos. We do value direct manipulation but only when we want it, not all the time Stef On Apr 16, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
On 4/15/12 6:14 PM, "Stéphane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
there are halos in Pharo.
Can you as stupid example grab a Browser window , duplicate and rotate it in no more as two clicks?
Maybe I do not know Pharo well...
Give me a Pharo image which behave as Squeak for Morph in the surface and have all deeper as clear as Juan Cuis and I sign.
And I atart to like Pharo , only need some PharoForGames in Morphic NOW.
Cheers
Edgar
On 4/16/12 7:45 AM, "Stéphane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
You can get the halos but not all the time in your face. Click + shift + option on mac bring the halos. We do value direct manipulation but only when we want it, not all the time Stef
Mmmm. Yes, you select some submorph, not the root one. And a preference could do the trick... In others forks you click middle button morph and manipulate Debug, Browser, Workspace. One click and duplicate and you have two Debug windows and could go several steps back in one and see where you start in the other. Show this to game developers !!! Very thanks !! Edgar
Edgar J. De Cleene-3 wrote
Yes, you select some submorph, not the root one. And a preference could do the trick...
A hack to bring back Squeak halo behavior can be found here: http://forum.world.st/How-turn-on-Halo-s-td2227309.html#a4196786 I too prefer the original Squeak behavior. As you indicate, it is not just the shortcut that changed, but a feature was removed. There used to be a way to cycle through submorphs in either direction, but now only (in my experience) the less useful direction is available. I would be happy to turn the above mentioned hack into a setting so we can all get what we want. I didn't do it earlier because it seemed like a slightly contentious issue and I didn't know if it would be integrated. Steph, would you be happy integrating such a feature? If so, I can have it ready quickly and bring back needed (at least for Edgar and I) functionality, turned off by default, so there would be no difference felt for those that don't want it... Cheers, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stupid-question-about-Fuel-tp4558930p4561467.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Edgar J. De Cleene-3 wrote
Yes, you select some submorph, not the root one. And a preference could do the trick...
A hack to bring back Squeak halo behavior can be found here: http://forum.world.st/How-turn-on-Halo-s-td2227309.html#a4196786
I too prefer the original Squeak behavior. As you indicate, it is not just the shortcut that changed, but a feature was removed. There used to be a way to cycle through submorphs in either direction, but now only (in my experience) the less useful direction is available.
I would be happy to turn the above mentioned hack into a setting so we can all get what we want. I didn't do it earlier because it seemed like a slightly contentious issue and I didn't know if it would be integrated.
Steph, would you be happy integrating such a feature? If so, I can have it ready quickly and bring back needed (at least for Edgar and I) functionality, turned off by default, so there would be no difference felt for those that don't want it...
Cheers, Sean
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stupid-question-about-Fuel-tp4558930p4561467.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
The additional longer term answer might be to have PharoGames as a customised distribution based on Pharo. As I understand it from observing discussion here, being a base platform for numerous "distributions" is a vision of Pharo. I think Moose qualifies as the first such distribution. cheers -ben
Sean P. DeNigris wrote
Steph, would you be happy integrating such a feature? If so, I can have it ready quickly and bring back needed (at least for Edgar and I) functionality, turned off by default, so there would be no difference felt for those that don't want it...
Steph, did you see this? Thanks, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stupid-question-about-Fuel-tp4558930p4571402.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Apr 19, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Sean P. DeNigris wrote:
Sean P. DeNigris wrote
Steph, would you be happy integrating such a feature? If so, I can have it ready quickly and bring back needed (at least for Edgar and I) functionality, turned off by default, so there would be no difference felt for those that don't want it...
Steph, did you see this?
No I'm sick since a week and running between meetings⦠Now if you have the code I can have a look and let you know because when I still how some parts of moprhic are writtenâ¦. I prefer to have less feature to focus on the right ones.
Thanks, Sean
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Stupid-question-about-Fuel-tp4558930p4571402.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
I'd second (or third ;)) making this a system-level preference. On 16 Apr 2012, at 12:12, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
On 4/16/12 7:45 AM, "Stéphane Ducasse" <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
You can get the halos but not all the time in your face. Click + shift + option on mac bring the halos. We do value direct manipulation but only when we want it, not all the time Stef
Mmmm.
Yes, you select some submorph, not the root one. And a preference could do the trick...
In others forks you click middle button morph and manipulate Debug, Browser, Workspace. One click and duplicate and you have two Debug windows and could go several steps back in one and see where you start in the other.
Show this to game developers !!!
Very thanks !!
Edgar
I think that pharo serves a need. The need for something solid and free from restrictions related to software. Got interested in Smallatalk and Squeak quite a long time ago. But never moved past the toy-stage with them. Went homoiconic with Tcl and "OO" with the whole Java chain. With Pharo, there is a sense of progress, cleanliness, and will to push the boundary by making some hard choices. And this made me interested in how things worked inside, and invest time and energy in making it a key target platform for my ideas-materialization activities in my business. Because business thrives on something solid, and innovation doesn't like arbitrary restrictions. Owning and mastering the whole chain from VM up to Image detail is huge. In Squeak, it is accretion. I think Pharo leans more towards the "crystallization" side of things. (Yep, I drank the kool-aid). Philippe 2012/4/15 Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com>
Hi Edgar,
some weeks ago I played with an idea to have Pharo Kernel as the base of Squeak. I compared the images to see how much work it would constitute. I found out two things: - it would not require too much work. It would be not simple but it is possible - there is no reason to do that
I can imagine Squeak as an extension of Pharo but I do not see the purpose and target users of the resultant system.
-- Pavel
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene <edgardec2005@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/15/12 8:50 AM, "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly,
and it
will be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a binary code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis.
And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to improve one system and make sure that system has a future?
Marcus
And if none of actual forks have all as I wish? All have some good and all have some problem for me. It's why try to learn from all here and all in Squeak and from Juan.
Don't' sell me the fish, teach me to fishing.
Edgar
-- Philippe Back "Helping you hit the top 3 outcomes you really want to achieve" Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail: phil@highoctane.be| Web: http://philippeback.eu | Blog: http://philippeback.be High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 1301 Bierges
On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:59 PM, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
I think that pharo serves a need. The need for something solid and free from restrictions related to software.
Got interested in Smallatalk and Squeak quite a long time ago. But never moved past the toy-stage with them. Went homoiconic with Tcl and "OO" with the whole Java chain.
With Pharo, there is a sense of progress, cleanliness, and will to push the boundary by making some hard choices.
Thanks and I can tell you that we have more plans :)
And this made me interested in how things worked inside, and invest time and energy in making it a key target platform for my ideas-materialization activities in my business. Because business thrives on something solid, and innovation doesn't like arbitrary restrictions.
Owning and mastering the whole chain from VM up to Image detail is huge. In Squeak, it is accretion. I think Pharo leans more towards the "crystallization" side of things. (Yep, I drank the kool-aid).
I'm not sure. But we want a system to invent the next one.THis is why we work on the bootstrap and soon on new class builder and first instance variable work of camillo and toon.
On 4/15/12 2:59 PM, "phil@highoctane.be" <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I think that pharo serves a need. The need for something solid and free from restrictions related to software.
Got interested in Smallatalk and Squeak quite a long time ago. But never moved past the toy-stage with them. Went homoiconic with Tcl and "OO" with the whole Java chain.
With Pharo, there is a sense of progress, cleanliness, and will to push the boundary by making some hard choices.
And this made me interested in how things worked inside, and invest time and energy in making it a key target platform for my ideas-materialization activities in my business. Because business thrives on something solid, and innovation doesn't like arbitrary restrictions.
Owning and mastering the whole chain from VM up to Image detail is huge. In Squeak, it is accretion. I think Pharo leans more towards the "crystallization" side of things. (Yep, I drank the kool-aid).
Philippe
Agree with all Edgar
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:50:06PM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
And wish made experiments if this Foo.fuel could be loaded into different fork as Squeak, Cuis having Fuel into.
I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a binary code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis.
And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to improve one system and make sure that system has a future?
Fuel seems to be well written and organized. Even though I have only used Fuel a little (for remote task execution with OSProcess), I was able to easily understand the code when I loaded it in Squeak. There is no reason that a well-written package cannot be maintained for several flavors of the image. That is a sign of competent developers doing good work :) Dave
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM, David T. Lewis <lewis@mail.msen.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:50:06PM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:
And wish made experiments if this Foo.fuel could be loaded into
different
fork as Squeak, Cuis having Fuel into.
I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, and it will be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a binary code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis.
And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to improve one system and make sure that system has a future?
Fuel seems to be well written and organized. Even though I have only used Fuel a little (for remote task execution with OSProcess), I was able to easily understand the code when I loaded it in Squeak.
There is no reason that a well-written package cannot be maintained for several flavors of the image. That is a sign of competent developers doing good work :)
Thanks Dave for the nice words :) At the beginning (first releases of Fuel) most answers and feedback from the community was "yet another serializer?" "why you have started again from scratch?" Now, some time later, people is slowly understanding why we have started from scratch ;) Cheers -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
participants (10)
-
Ben Coman -
David T. Lewis -
Edgar J. De Cleene -
Marcus Denker -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Mark Smith -
Pavel Krivanek -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Stéphane Ducasse