Gutenberg - how to use it? How to install, how is the process... Any links? thx T.
Yes, OK - meanwhile I found out. For the records: Gutemberg is an addon for Pier CMS to write a book in Pier syntax. It can convert into PDF. Details here: [1] https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/PharoForTheEnterprise/ [2] http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~DamienCassou/Pier-Gutemberg [3] https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoForTheEnterprise-english
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Oktober 2013 um 15:04 Uhr Von: "Yuriy Tymchuk" <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg
You are talking about Pier-Gutenberg? A thing for books?
On 30 Oct 2013, at 14:37, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Gutenberg - how to use it? How to install, how is the process... Any links?
thx T.
Yes. That are probably all the links I could suggest. Also I have a question for a community: Why do we need Pier-Gutenberg? Why canât we gust use ePub for example? Uko On 30 Oct 2013, at 15:36, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Yes, OK - meanwhile I found out. For the records:
Gutemberg is an addon for Pier CMS to write a book in Pier syntax. It can convert into PDF. Details here:
[1] https://ci.inria.fr/pharo-contribution/job/PharoForTheEnterprise/ [2] http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~DamienCassou/Pier-Gutemberg [3] https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoForTheEnterprise-english
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Oktober 2013 um 15:04 Uhr Von: "Yuriy Tymchuk" <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: Re: [Pharo-dev] Using Gutenberg
You are talking about Pier-Gutenberg? A thing for books?
On 30 Oct 2013, at 14:37, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Gutenberg - how to use it? How to install, how is the process... Any links?
thx T.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Why do we need Pier-Gutenberg? Why canât we gust use ePub for example?
We need a simple text based syntax (like for wiki) to write documentation fast (e.g., books, class comments, method comments). I don't know ePub, but it looks a lot like HTML, which is way too verbose for our needs. Gutemberg looks more like Mardown and Org-mode. The difference with these 2 is that everything is written in Smalltalk so it is easy to customize to our needs and embed in Pharo (e.g., to show beautiful class comments in Nautilus, just like in Amber: http://forum.world.st/attachment/4684866/0/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-02%20at%2...) -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
This makes sense. But I have 2 opinions: 1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown? 2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them. Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac. Cheers. Uko On 30 Oct 2013, at 17:36, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Why do we need Pier-Gutenberg? Why canât we gust use ePub for example?
We need a simple text based syntax (like for wiki) to write documentation fast (e.g., books, class comments, method comments). I don't know ePub, but it looks a lot like HTML, which is way too verbose for our needs. Gutemberg looks more like Mardown and Org-mode. The difference with these 2 is that everything is written in Smalltalk so it is easy to customize to our needs and embed in Pharo (e.g., to show beautiful class comments in Nautilus, just like in Amber: http://forum.world.st/attachment/4684866/0/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-02%20at%2...)
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 2013-10-30, at 17:53, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
This makes sense. But I have 2 opinions:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
I burnt my fingers already on markdown :), so the major problem is that we do not have a complete parser yet. The current version is something like 90% ready, but lacks for instance proper support for lists. Feel free to contribute ;): http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~dh83/petitmarkdown
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them.
because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we can add the features we need.
Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac.
I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than LaTeX. We want people to write books easily. -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown.
2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them.
because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we can add the features we need.
Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac.
I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than LaTeX. We want people to write books easily.
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned. Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example. Cheers. Uko
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:24, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown.
2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them.
because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we can add the features we need.
Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac.
I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than LaTeX. We want people to write books easily.
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in. But, - there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown. As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that. I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
Cheers. Uko
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:36, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 19:24, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:22, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown.
2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them.
because the code is simple, well tested and written in Smalltalk, we can add the features we need.
Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem. Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac.
I don't know ePub but from what I can't see, it is not simpler than LaTeX. We want people to write books easily.
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
Cheers. Uko
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/
On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/
But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ? I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so... And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests.
On 2013-10-30, at 21:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/
But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ?
I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so...
And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests.
Sadly yes. We spent quite some time with Damien Pollet to get a better version, we ended up with a 2-pass approach to first detect blocks an then do the span analysis. This way you get quite far, but still, it is not very well defined.
On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:15, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@stfx.eu> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 20:09, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/
But do you agree on my list of technical problems with Markdown ?
We can take spec of daring fireball. And extend it if we need it. Or we can use githubâs markdown. But of course I agree with you
I once tried to write a Markdown parser myself and I gave up and you admit that you donât get yours in full order, so...
And even if you did get it more or less right, you would get conflicting feature requests.
Well were are the books you wrote with this wonderful format? The only guy I can consider is sven. Why because he is writing real documentation. Now I'm confident that sevn could write in pier syntax because this is really close to markdown. What is missing is the immediate rendering of pier syntax as in the collabactive book. Stef On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/
On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:51, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
Well were are the books you wrote with this wonderful format? The only guy I can consider is sven. Why because he is writing real documentation. Now I'm confident that sevn could write in pier syntax because this is really close to markdown. What is missing is the immediate rendering of pier syntax as in the collabactive book.
I havenât written any books. But I donât feel bad for asking the things that I what to hear other peoples opinion about.
Stef
On Oct 30, 2013, at 8:09 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
I personally *love* Markdown, it is very easy/productive to write documentation in.
But,
- there are different, competing and conflicting Markdown variants - there is no official specification (OK, daring fireball, but he refuses to work with github, stack exchange) - there is no formal syntax specification, nowhere - it is very hard to write a parser, it is too loosely specified
Pier syntax is not new, it is probably older than Markdown.
As far as I am concerned, the most prolific/active authors get to decide, it is a simple as that.
I am just hoping that their standalone parser and document model is high quality ;-)
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
I agree with you 100%... plus I use markdown for webdoc => http://files.pharo.org/doc/2.0/
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
with the same attitute, why do you do smalltalk when there is JS? Stef
On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:49, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
with the same attitute, why do you do smalltalk when there is JS?
I donât see what is new in Pier. Now I know a plan about big extension.
Stef
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
with the same attitute, why do you do smalltalk when there is JS?
I donât see what is new in Pier.
I do not get what something would have to be new in pier. It just WORKS for what it was built and before markdown came alone. OK the world is going to use makrdown until a guy in power will be feed up and add an extension to github and the world will be happy and cry of joy. We are not such people but we have a working solution so that we can write versioned, syntax neutral books and documentation. And we will do it.
Now I know a plan about big extension.
Can you understand that pier is working for us? And that we spent time making sure that we can have an infrastructure to really produce documents with it. So why suddenly we should abandon it. Can you think two minutes in our place? Stef here is the pier syntax do you tell me that this is difficult to learn? ! header !! !!! list - # ref * * [[[ code ]]] ==code== So
read the latex we documented everything. We added [[[ with caption and ref]]] and what is missing is a kind of tag to manage ref, comment in text and other little stuff. After that we have everything needed to write real book. We should improve the latex macros. Stef
here is the pier syntax do you tell me that this is difficult to learn?
! header !! !!!
list - #
ref * *
[[[ code ]]]
==code==
And what was added for Gutemberg?
the pdf that I sent and that you can find on git hub https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoForTheEnterprise-english down down down at the bottom On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-10-31, at 18:27, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
read the latex we documented everything.
which latex file?
Can you give me write access to the repo? Phil On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>wrote:
the pdf that I sent and that you can find on git hub
https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoForTheEnterprise-english
down down down at the bottom
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-10-31, at 18:27, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
wrote:
read the latex we documented everything.
which latex file?
sure what is your git account. Stef On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:01 PM, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Can you give me write access to the repo?
Phil
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote: the pdf that I sent and that you can find on git hub
https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoForTheEnterprise-english
down down down at the bottom
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-10-31, at 18:27, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
read the latex we documented everything.
which latex file?
philippeback --- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail:phil@highoctane.be | Web: http://philippeback.eu Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium Pharo Consortium Member - http://consortium.pharo.org/ Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast - http://spamcast.libsyn.com Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>wrote:
sure what is your git account.
Stef
On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:01 PM, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
Can you give me write access to the repo?
Phil
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:42 AM, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
the pdf that I sent and that you can find on git hub
https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoForTheEnterprise-english
down down down at the bottom
On Oct 31, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2013-10-31, at 18:27, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
wrote:
read the latex we documented everything.
which latex file?
Cool. I've tried to use the toolkit on Windows but it is a PITA. OSX Lion is fine. There are some socket errors and Worldstate messages when compiling a chapter: [PhilMac:/Volumes/Public/Dev/DevPharo/PharoForTheEnterprise-english philippeback$] ./compile.sh NativeBoost/NativeBoost.pier setsockopt: No buffer space available setsockopt: No buffer space available WorldState setsockopt: No buffer space available setsockopt: No buffer space available WorldState Compiling PDF... Compiling PDF... Output is fine. Lots of interesting material in the chapters. Artefact is of particular interest to me (creation of invoices). Now digesting the Pier syntax. Is there any Vim highlighting? I've downloaded the Wikipedia one, should be close to tweak in case there is no Vim plugin. Phil On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>wrote:
done :)
On Nov 1, 2013, at 2:48 PM, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
philippeback
Lots of interesting material in the chapters. Artefact is of particular interest to me (creation of invoices).
Now digesting the Pier syntax.
Is there any Vim highlighting? I've downloaded the Wikipedia one, should be close to tweak in case there is no Vim plugin.
the emacs one is working well now I do not know if there is a vim. Stef
On 31 Oct 2013, at 16:01, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
I have nothing against pier syntax. But imagine person coming from outside, who used markdown to ask questions on stack overflow and write readmes on github, and here he has to use a different syntax for the same purpose. Just a thought about bringing new people into a community :)
with the same attitute, why do you do smalltalk when there is JS?
I donât see what is new in Pier.
I do not get what something would have to be new in pier. It just WORKS for what it was built and before markdown came alone. OK the world is going to use makrdown until a guy in power will be feed up and add an extension to github and the world will be happy and cry of joy. We are not such people but we have a working solution so that we can write versioned, syntax neutral books and documentation. And we will do it.
Now I know a plan about big extension.
Can you understand that pier is working for us? And that we spent time making sure that we can have an infrastructure to really produce documents with it. So why suddenly we should abandon it.
Can you think two minutes in our place?
I totally understand you. I was just telling my humble opinion. But it was silly because nobody really cares. Uko
Stef
here is the pier syntax do you tell me that this is difficult to learn?
! header !! !!!
list - #
ref * *
[[[ code ]]]
==code==
So
<PierSample.pier.pdf>
Can you think two minutes in our place?
I totally understand you. I was just telling my humble opinion. But it was silly because nobody really cares.
This is not that we do not care. We already evaluated the situation. if this is to have to manage my own version of markdown I prefer to use pier for many reasons. Stef
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown.
Because you learn markdown first but pier syntax predates it. and because like that we have one syntax for everything. Did you notice that the seaside book was fully written with this syntax and it WORKS!!!
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
IT IS NOT A NEW SYNTAX!!! We have this neutral syntax that proved to work for real and we have exporters and with a bit of work we will be able to generate all the formats we want. So if you need epub, add a visitor and all the chapters I'm writing will be in epub too. But I will not work with a syntax that does not let me write book, html, â¦. Why because this is my time. Stef
Cheers. Uko
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:48, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown.
Because you learn markdown first but pier syntax predates it. and because like that we have one syntax for everything. Did you notice that the seaside book was fully written with this syntax and it WORKS!!!
For me itâs like stating that weâll make one car that will be able to win both Formula 1 and Dakar Rally.
Iâm not looking for simplicity, Iâm looking for a good final product. ePub shouldnât be simpler, itâs just made for eBooks. On the other hand there are editors with WYSIWYG support like: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K2Q-tdVbPRI/UI08v7LhzHI/AAAAAAAAABY/vZ5LHjM6nb4/s1... And of course there is iBooks Author that I mentioned.
Iâm not trying to convince, Iâm just trying to understand why development of a new syntax is better the reusing/extending existing one. Or why we canât use epub + sigil for example.
IT IS NOT A NEW SYNTAX!!! We have this neutral syntax that proved to work for real and we have exporters and with a bit of work we will be able to generate all the formats we want.
Just talking about newcomers.
So if you need epub, add a visitor and all the chapters I'm writing will be in epub too. But I will not work with a syntax that does not let me write book, html, â¦. Why because this is my time.
Stef
Cheers. Uko
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On Oct 30, 2013, at 10:36 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:48, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
markdown misses a lot of features we need to write a book as you highlight in your next point. So I don't understand your question :-)
If you want to write a comment and display it in Amber I donât see why people have to learn a new markup language when there is markdown.
Because you learn markdown first but pier syntax predates it. and because like that we have one syntax for everything. Did you notice that the seaside book was fully written with this syntax and it WORKS!!!
For me itâs like stating that weâll make one car that will be able to win both Formula 1 and Dakar Rally.
sorry but you are wrong. But this is your right not to see what we are doing.
Just talking about newcomers.
Ok so they can learn Smalltalk but they cannot learn two changes from markdown. So yes let us focus on them they will write books and documentation for sure. Stef
On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
This makes sense. But I have 2 opinions:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
because we will have to patch it anyway because it is uncomplete (missing features for making decent book).
2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them.
Like what? Be precise because we can extend gutenberg to cover these needs. Because we took the previous pharo book macros and reduce the set.
Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem.
Because with gutenberg+ we can generate - latex - markdown - html so you can add epub I do not want to eith write doc or book or html I want one format to produce them all.
Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac.
Cheers. Uko
On 30 Oct 2013, at 17:36, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Why do we need Pier-Gutenberg? Why canât we gust use ePub for example?
We need a simple text based syntax (like for wiki) to write documentation fast (e.g., books, class comments, method comments). I don't know ePub, but it looks a lot like HTML, which is way too verbose for our needs. Gutemberg looks more like Mardown and Org-mode. The difference with these 2 is that everything is written in Smalltalk so it is easy to customize to our needs and embed in Pharo (e.g., to show beautiful class comments in Nautilus, just like in Amber: http://forum.world.st/attachment/4684866/0/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-02%20at%2...)
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
On 30 Oct 2013, at 21:44, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
This makes sense. But I have 2 opinions:
1) If we want something like markdown, why not to use Markdown?
because we will have to patch it anyway because it is uncomplete (missing features for making decent book).
2) When I think about the book I think about something nice. I donât think that markdown is good for books. Thatâs exactly what I encountered. I wanted to start with this updated version of RBE and wanted to use Gutenberg so it will be possible to put the book on iBook store and Amazon and read it on iDevices and Kindles. But When I started to rewrite latex source in Gutenberg Iâve found that a lot of details are going to be missing, because the is no support in Gutenberg for them.
Like what? Be precise because we can extend gutenberg to cover these needs. Because we took the previous pharo book macros and reduce the set.
Thatâs my main question: why wonât we write books in ePub (because it the #1 eBooks format) and confer it to .mobi (for kindles) as the formats can be converted without a problem.
Because with gutenberg+ we can generate - latex - markdown - html so you can add epub
Just why do you need a book in markdown?
I do not want to eith write doc or book or html I want one format to produce them all.
Iâd also enjoy to write books in iBooks Author, but it will be hard to cooperate as not everybody is using Mac.
Cheers. Uko
On 30 Oct 2013, at 17:36, Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
Why do we need Pier-Gutenberg? Why canât we gust use ePub for example?
We need a simple text based syntax (like for wiki) to write documentation fast (e.g., books, class comments, method comments). I don't know ePub, but it looks a lot like HTML, which is way too verbose for our needs. Gutemberg looks more like Mardown and Org-mode. The difference with these 2 is that everything is written in Smalltalk so it is easy to customize to our needs and embed in Pharo (e.g., to show beautiful class comments in Nautilus, just like in Amber: http://forum.world.st/attachment/4684866/0/Screen%20Shot%202013-05-02%20at%2...)
-- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
Yury could you listen and read what we write? We want one common format so that we can output all the others and like that we do not have "this is in pdf but not in HTML so google cannot find the information" kind of complaint. And we have that! Gutenberg is generating HTML + PDF + whatever we want. So I do not get where is the problem. ANd the solution worked because we wrote with lukas the seaside book in pier format on the web and the book that people buy is based on the web so I do not get you. Stef
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> wrote:
Gutemberg is an addon for Pier CMS to write a book in Pier syntax. It can convert into PDF. Details here:
soon Gutemberg will be indepent of Pier and only dependent on Pier syntax and parser (code name 'Pillar') : http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Pier/Pillar -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." Winston Churchill
participants (7)
-
Camillo Bruni -
Damien Cassou -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Sven Van Caekenberghe -
Torsten Bergmann -
Yuriy Tymchuk