[Pharo-project] Smalltalk vs SmalltalkImage current woes
I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage current' refactoring.. And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code which have to be ported from Squeak, i need to visit all the places and fix the references. I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , that i'm a heated enemy of global state. But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class. But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'. So, what i'm proposing: - make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc. then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current). Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance. What you think? -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:27:36 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage current' refactoring.. And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code which have to be ported from Squeak, i need to visit all the places and fix the references.
I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , that i'm a heated enemy of global state. But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class.
But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'.
So, what i'm proposing:
- make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc.
then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
This part will not work, check yourself: (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect /Klaus
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel@cobss.com>:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:27:36 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage current' refactoring.. And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code which have to be ported from Squeak, i need to visit all the places and fix the references.
I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , that i'm a heated enemy of global state. But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class.
But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'.
So, what i'm proposing:
- make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc.
then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
This part will not work, check yourself:
 (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect
in what way it wont work? I can implement #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage class, to proxy it to globals ivar. What's wrong with it? Or do you mean, that we will end up with the need of proxying all Collection protocol methods? There always can be more radical solutions, like proxying rest of stuff through DNU handler :)
/Klaus
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: Â - dictionary lives in separate ivar, Â - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:39:07 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : ...
So, what i'm proposing: ... then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
This part will not work, check yourself:
 (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect
in what way it wont work?
I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk then you should see why that's not possible.
I can implement #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage class, to proxy it to globals ivar. What's wrong with it?
With #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage? nothing, if it still makes sense.
Or do you mean, that we will end up with the need of proxying all Collection protocol methods?
Some of them: yes; unless you get rid of "Dictionary" users' view.
There always can be more radical solutions, like proxying rest of stuff through DNU handler :)
:)
/Klaus
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel@cobss.com>:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:39:07 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : ...
So, what i'm proposing: ... then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
This part will not work, check yourself:
 (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) inspect
in what way it wont work?
I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try
 Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk
then you should see why that's not possible.
I don't see how this can be a barrier of any sort for a real hacker: (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) becomeForward: (#Smalltalk -> Smalltalk). Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk There are numerous ways how to get around this ;) Btw, this is another reason to not expose messages like #associationAt: to users. Alas, associations is used by compiler. :(
I can implement #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage class, to proxy it to globals ivar. What's wrong with it?
With #associationAt: in SmalltalkImage? nothing, if it still makes sense.
Or do you mean, that we will end up with the need of proxying all Collection protocol methods?
Some of them: yes; unless you get rid of "Dictionary" users' view.
There always can be more radical solutions, like proxying rest of stuff through DNU handler :)
:)
/Klaus
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:53:47 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel : ...
I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try
 Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk
then you should see why that's not possible.
I don't see how this can be a barrier of any sort for a real hacker:
(Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) becomeForward: (#Smalltalk -> Smalltalk).
Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk
There are numerous ways how to get around this ;)
Have you considered rehash, .image save & load ? I've thought about replacing (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk)'s value many times and don't want to risk other people's .images just because of *any* silly mistake. That's why I'm interested in solutions to the practical side.
Btw, this is another reason to not expose messages like #associationAt: to users.
Yes, one reason is: do not expose #pointersTo:, since then #associationAt: can be simulated. And just another one: do not expose #someObject or #nextObject ( & friends), since then #pointersTo: can be simulated. (cough) back to Smalltalk? :)
Alas, associations is used by compiler. :(
Sure. /Klaus
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel <klaus.witzel@cobss.com>:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:53:47 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
2009/7/24 Klaus D. Witzel :
...
I was responding to a practical issue, not a conceptual one; try
 Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk
then you should see why that's not possible.
I don't see how this can be a barrier of any sort for a real hacker:
(Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk) becomeForward: (#Smalltalk -> Smalltalk).
Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: Smalltalk
There are numerous ways how to get around this ;)
Have you considered rehash, .image save & load ?
Since i'm not touching the key - #Smalltalk, such change is immune from potential hashing issues. And yes, i saved & loaded image after this brutal hack. It works as usual.
I've thought about replacing (Smalltalk associationAt: #Smalltalk)'s value many times and don't want to risk other people's .images just because of *any* silly mistake. That's why I'm interested in solutions to the practical side.
well this could be done once, tested & shipped with new "core" image. So you never need to be bothered with this again.
Btw, this is another reason to not expose messages like #associationAt: to users.
Yes, one reason is: do not expose #pointersTo:, since then #associationAt: can be simulated. And just another one: do not expose #someObject or #nextObject ( & friends), since then #pointersTo: can be simulated. (cough) back to Smalltalk? :)
Right, lets better discuss the pros and cons of such change instead of harms to Smalltalk association :)
Alas, associations is used by compiler. :(
Sure.
/Klaus
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
I particularly like this idea from the standpoint of delivering a modules that exist within their own context. It is actually not that dissimilar from Forth systems that use different vocabs to support multiple incompatible applications at the same time. Something like this would solve one of the problems I've been running into recently, where some code keeps mucking up the SystemDictionary's associations causing the Compiler to error out. Dave -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://blog.dloh.org/
I also like the idea since I always loose a few seconds to figure out where some method, like vmStatisticsReportString, is located. There are at least three different selectors used to access a singleton instance: SmalltalkImage current SystemNavigation default SystemChangeNotifier uniqueInstance I just can't remember them. Adrian On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:27 , Igor Stasenko wrote:
I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage current' refactoring.. And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code which have to be ported from Squeak, i need to visit all the places and fix the references.
I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , that i'm a heated enemy of global state. But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class.
But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'.
So, what i'm proposing:
- make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc.
then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
On Jul 24, 2009, at 8:22 PM, Adrian Lienhard wrote:
I also like the idea since I always loose a few seconds to figure out where some method, like vmStatisticsReportString, is located. There are at least three different selectors used to access a singleton instance:
SmalltalkImage current SystemNavigation default SystemChangeNotifier uniqueInstance
I just can't remember them.
We could be consistent but havgin Smalltalk point to each of them is not a solution since the client code will still not distinguish between its really provider. Stef
Adrian
On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:27 , Igor Stasenko wrote:
I am currently using the Cuis, which doesn't having a 'SmalltalkImage current' refactoring.. And this difference is a bit frustrating to me, especially when code which have to be ported from Squeak, i need to visit all the places and fix the references.
I was not here when this change was introduced, and you maybe know , that i'm a heated enemy of global state. But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class.
But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'.
So, what i'm proposing:
- make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc.
then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
Smalltalk is a dictionary namespace not a shit place full of crap. This is why we started to clean SystemDictionary and people started to complain and we stop.
But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class.
But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'.
So, what i'm proposing:
- make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc.
then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
Yes this was the solution we envision to keep people happy. And one day cut the backlink. Stef
2009/7/25 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
Smalltalk is a dictionary namespace not a shit place full of crap.
Agree, this is why i proposing a consensus: Keep dictionary aside of shit, and at same time live with what we currently have :)
This is why we started to clean SystemDictionary and people started to complain and we stop.
But i understand the reasoning of dissection the Smalltalk dictionary of globals from the rest of service methods & additional state, which is needed and which were putted in SmalltalkImage class.
But the more i thinking about it, the more i feel that this 'dissection' can be done in least intrusive way which is much friendlier to 'old ways' but also plays well with 'current ways'.
So, what i'm proposing:
- make a dictionary of globals a pure dictionary, without any extra unrelated methods. - completely move all fat stuff into SmalltalkImage from SystemDictionary class - add 'globals' ivar to SmalltalkImage class , and add proxy methods for accessing the dictionary, like #at: #at:put: etc.
then simply: Smalltalk at: #Smalltalk put: (SmalltalkImage current).
Now, Smalltalk == SmalltalkImage current and everyone is happy: - dictionary lives in separate ivar, - fat & boring housekeeping stuff lives in SmalltalkImage instance.
What you think?
Yes this was the solution we envision to keep people happy. And one day cut the backlink.
Stef
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
participants (5)
-
Adrian Lienhard -
David Goehrig -
Igor Stasenko -
Klaus D. Witzel -
Stéphane Ducasse