April 2013 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] in anybody out there? who uses 2.0?

by stephane ducasse

I think that you should publish the change for DBX in the DBX repo and the metaRepoForPharo20. Stef On Apr 7, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The only configuration I changed was ConfigurationOfGlorpDBX, it was trivial, just to make it load. I added > spec for: #'pharo2.x' version: '2.5'. > to ConfigurationOfGlorpDBX >> stable: > Some tests failed, but AFAIR, they also failed on 1.4. > > Other changes include fixing Seaside's WAImageStatus, which was also trivial but has been broken for ages. Not sure how to push these changes, especially because these are only for Pharo2.0. > > > > > On 7 April 2013 11:47, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > this really cool, thanks! > > btw... if you needed to update configurations... could you commit the new configurations to the repository for Pharo2.0? > > thanks, > Esteban > > On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27 March 2013 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Here in Pharo headquarters we are shock that there are just 10 new bugs reported for 2.0 after the release... >> So... I wonder... is that because we made a really cool release, or just because nobody is using it? >> >> I know you must be starving for feedback on Pharo 2.0, so here is mine. >> >> I ported my app to it, from Pharo 1.4. The app uses Glorp, Seaside, RFB and HPDF, so it took me an afternoon. >> The overall impression is great. Unlike 1.4, it didn't crash a single time. Another great thing is that you didn't make that many backward incompatible changes as I though you would. Of course, I had to patch almost all of the above (their dependencies include FFI, OpenDBX etc.) and rewrite some little bits of my code, but it was worth it. The new FS classes are must better. >> From user's point of view there is no much difference to 1.4, which is a good thing. I know you revamped things internally. >> >> Keep the good work, and I hope I will be able to provide you with feedback from real production environment soon. >> >> >> -- >> Milan Mimica >> http://sparklet.sf.net > > > > > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] in anybody out there? who uses 2.0?

by Milan Mimica

The only configuration I changed was ConfigurationOfGlorpDBX, it was trivial, just to make it load. I added spec for: #'pharo2.x' version: '2.5'. to ConfigurationOfGlorpDBX >> stable: Some tests failed, but AFAIR, they also failed on 1.4. Other changes include fixing Seaside's WAImageStatus, which was also trivial but has been broken for ages. Not sure how to push these changes, especially because these are only for Pharo2.0. On 7 April 2013 11:47, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > this really cool, thanks! > > btw... if you needed to update configurations... could you commit the new > configurations to the repository for Pharo2.0? > > thanks, > Esteban > > On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 27 March 2013 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Here in Pharo headquarters we are shock that there are just 10 new bugs >> reported for 2.0 after the release... >> So... I wonder... is that because we made a really cool release, or just >> because nobody is using it? >> > > I know you must be starving for feedback on Pharo 2.0, so here is mine. > > I ported my app to it, from Pharo 1.4. The app uses Glorp, Seaside, RFB > and HPDF, so it took me an afternoon. > The overall impression is great. Unlike 1.4, it didn't crash a single > time. Another great thing is that you didn't make that many backward > incompatible changes as I though you would. Of course, I had to patch > almost all of the above (their dependencies include FFI, OpenDBX etc.) and > rewrite some little bits of my code, but it was worth it. The new FS > classes are must better. > From user's point of view there is no much difference to 1.4, which is a > good thing. I know you revamped things internally. > > Keep the good work, and I hope I will be able to provide you with feedback > from real production environment soon. > > > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net > > > -- Milan Mimica http://sparklet.sf.net

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] in anybody out there? who uses 2.0?

by stephane ducasse

thanks for the feedback We would like to migrate all the libraries we all use to SmalltalkHub and start to have a process so that we can validate the project. So if people want to help you are welcome. Stef On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 March 2013 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Here in Pharo headquarters we are shock that there are just 10 new bugs reported for 2.0 after the release... > So... I wonder... is that because we made a really cool release, or just because nobody is using it? > > I know you must be starving for feedback on Pharo 2.0, so here is mine. > > I ported my app to it, from Pharo 1.4. The app uses Glorp, Seaside, RFB and HPDF, so it took me an afternoon. > The overall impression is great. Unlike 1.4, it didn't crash a single time. Another great thing is that you didn't make that many backward incompatible changes as I though you would. Of course, I had to patch almost all of the above (their dependencies include FFI, OpenDBX etc.) and rewrite some little bits of my code, but it was worth it. The new FS classes are must better. > From user's point of view there is no much difference to 1.4, which is a good thing. I know you revamped things internally. > > Keep the good work, and I hope I will be able to provide you with feedback from real production environment soon. > > > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] in anybody out there? who uses 2.0?

by Esteban Lorenzano

this really cool, thanks! btw... if you needed to update configurations... could you commit the new configurations to the repository for Pharo2.0? thanks, Esteban On Apr 7, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 March 2013 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Here in Pharo headquarters we are shock that there are just 10 new bugs reported for 2.0 after the release... > So... I wonder... is that because we made a really cool release, or just because nobody is using it? > > I know you must be starving for feedback on Pharo 2.0, so here is mine. > > I ported my app to it, from Pharo 1.4. The app uses Glorp, Seaside, RFB and HPDF, so it took me an afternoon. > The overall impression is great. Unlike 1.4, it didn't crash a single time. Another great thing is that you didn't make that many backward incompatible changes as I though you would. Of course, I had to patch almost all of the above (their dependencies include FFI, OpenDBX etc.) and rewrite some little bits of my code, but it was worth it. The new FS classes are must better. > From user's point of view there is no much difference to 1.4, which is a good thing. I know you revamped things internally. > > Keep the good work, and I hope I will be able to provide you with feedback from real production environment soon. > > > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] in anybody out there? who uses 2.0?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi Milan, On 07 Apr 2013, at 08:43, Milan Mimica <milan.mimica(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 March 2013 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Here in Pharo headquarters we are shock that there are just 10 new bugs reported for 2.0 after the release... > So... I wonder... is that because we made a really cool release, or just because nobody is using it? > > I know you must be starving for feedback on Pharo 2.0, so here is mine. > > I ported my app to it, from Pharo 1.4. The app uses Glorp, Seaside, RFB and HPDF, so it took me an afternoon. > The overall impression is great. Unlike 1.4, it didn't crash a single time. Another great thing is that you didn't make that many backward incompatible changes as I though you would. Of course, I had to patch almost all of the above (their dependencies include FFI, OpenDBX etc.) and rewrite some little bits of my code, but it was worth it. The new FS classes are must better. > From user's point of view there is no much difference to 1.4, which is a good thing. I know you revamped things internally. > > Keep the good work, and I hope I will be able to provide you with feedback from real production environment soon. That is really great to hear. Thanks! Sounds like an impressive application that you got there. We value success stories and/or great use cases a lot, when you are ready. Sven > -- > Milan Mimica > http://sparklet.sf.net -- Sven Van Caekenberghe Proudly supporting Pharo http://pharo.org http://association.pharo.org http://consortium.pharo.org

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-project] [FYI] Athens tutorial

by stephane ducasse

Alex you can use it for real in roassal For the bootstrap - connection with TextMorph - reimplement all the drawOn: method stef On Apr 7, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.bergel(a)me.com> wrote: > Really cool! > Works well! > > How far are we from bootstrapping? > > Alexandre > > > On Apr 3, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, there >> >> i prepared a small tutorial for Athens, which i did today at PharoConf. >> But the code i did can be reused by non-participants of conference :) >> >> Here the instructions. >> >> Download Pharo 2.0 >> >> wget -O - get.pharo.org | bash >> >> Run Pharo 2.0 >> >> ./pharo-ui Pharo.image >> >> In a workspace, evaluate (line after line) >> >> Gofer it smalltalkhubUser: 'Pharo' project: 'Athens'; configuration; load. >> >> ConfigurationOfAthens loadVersion: '2.0'. >> >> Gofer it smalltalkhubUser: 'Pharo' project: 'Athens'; >> package:'Athens-Tutorial'; load. >> >> AthensTutorial new openWithSpec. >> >> >> Took from here >> https://gist.github.com/SergeStinckwich/44ca34b54cde83b687a3 >> (just removed duplicates ;) >> >> Thanks, Serge for compiling it down ;) >> >> Once you load the code and have window open, skip step one (you already did it), >> and then just follow the steps by pressing doit button changing the >> code , pressing doit again , going forwards etc .. and playing with >> it. >> I put some comments there to serve as a small description/detail. >> >> Any feedback & help & contributions & improvements is welcome. >> >> P.S. if you get a DNU at step 30, enable Freetype in settings and try again. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Igor Stasenko. >> > > -- > _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: > Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu > ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;. > > > >

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] in anybody out there? who uses 2.0?

by Milan Mimica

On 27 March 2013 15:24, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Here in Pharo headquarters we are shock that there are just 10 new bugs > reported for 2.0 after the release... > So... I wonder... is that because we made a really cool release, or just > because nobody is using it? > I know you must be starving for feedback on Pharo 2.0, so here is mine. I ported my app to it, from Pharo 1.4. The app uses Glorp, Seaside, RFB and HPDF, so it took me an afternoon. The overall impression is great. Unlike 1.4, it didn't crash a single time. Another great thing is that you didn't make that many backward incompatible changes as I though you would. Of course, I had to patch almost all of the above (their dependencies include FFI, OpenDBX etc.) and rewrite some little bits of my code, but it was worth it. The new FS classes are must better. >From user's point of view there is no much difference to 1.4, which is a good thing. I know you revamped things internally. Keep the good work, and I hope I will be able to provide you with feedback from real production environment soon. -- Milan Mimica http://sparklet.sf.net

April 7, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Slot questions

by stephane ducasse

Thomas I suggest you not to stress. Did you see the introduction of FileSystem? We did it perfect and you get a documentation. So focus on what you want to do and do not stress about the rest. I can tell you that we know what we are doing and we certainly care more about the system that many other people. Pharo systematically improves and its documentation too. Now if you have a couple of hundred of thousand of dollars we can fix such situation fast, else it will just get slowler. Stef > That's fine if you never want to have new people pick up your project and get started. Otherwise I would say that an undocumented API may as well never have been built. Look at Morphic. That's about all you can do with it if you've got a full time job that's not Smalltalk related - look at it. The documentation is about zilch and what there is consists of layers and layers of material relating to varying systems of varying ages. > > The answer to Marcus' question "what should I not do to have time for that" is "anything". Nothing is more important than accurate documentation. Even a system that is broken will get fixed quicker if there is documentation which allows new hands to be added to the task of fixing it. > > Incorrect documentation is WORSE than no documentation; would anyone really suggest that Pharo would be a viable system without any documentation? > > My experience of several large Open Source projects (and many Closed Source ones) is that the people involved in the projects get familiar with the APIs and methods and can fail to see just how hard it has become for outsiders to break in. > > This is why I'm worried about slots. At the moment I can at least learn about Smalltalk generically and pick up Pharo and, with a lot of effort, get to the point that I can do something useful. If new concepts are added to the language *and then used by the in-group to get on with the things they're interested in* without good documentation then all that has happened is that the tool has become more specialized for the work of the contributing group while becoming harder to access for others. > > I'm *not* really that worried about slots in and of themselves if they can be added cleanly; I'm more worried about the gap between what documentation there is and how the system *actually* works growing ever wider. > > I'm also not attempting to say that those who are very active with Pharo are bad programmers because documentation has become problematical - if they are then I'm a bad programmer too - I just want to point out that a system has even more need of documentation than a completed application and *if it's possible* (and I know that finance is an issue in the real world) then I think that updating the Pharo book(s) to a point where they describe the current Pharo 2.0 state is FAR more important than work on Pharo 3.0. > > Well, that's my view, anyway as a professional programmer who has struggled to get to grips with Pharo in my spare time. > > Thomas Worthington >

April 6, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Slot questions

by stephane ducasse

Marcus I think that we improve Morphic a lot and we will continue. I do not think that this is wise to bash the only graphical system we have except if you want to use a web based solution. For me I still think that there is a good value in Morphic but that we should continue to improve it. And of course this is not an easy task. Stef On Apr 6, 2013, at 7:10 PM, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Thomas Worthington" <thomas(a)technouveau.co.uk> wrote: >> Look at Morphic. > > Morphic is a mess of epic proportion. The ideas are good (the basic ones), but the implementation is beyond hope. > >> That's about all you can do with it if you've got a full time job that's not Smalltalk related - > > Morphic is unmaintanable and unusable for everyone. > >> >> The answer to Marcus' question "what should I not do to have time for that" is "anything". > > Anything is a bit of a hard thing.. e.g. Morphic does not need to be documented, it needs to be thrown away and > reimplemented. It's just a pile of crap. > > >> I'm also not attempting to say that those who are very active with Pharo are bad programmers because documentation has become problematical - if they are then I'm a bad programmer too - I just want to point out that a system has even more need of documentation than a completed application and *if it's possible* (and I know that finance is an issue in the real world) then I think that updating the Pharo book(s) to a point where they describe the current Pharo 2.0 state is FAR more important than work on Pharo 3.0. > > > We need both. Documentation is important, but just documenting a system that nobody needs makes no sense, either. > > Marcus > >

April 6, 2013

Re: [Pharo-users] Slot questions

by Victor Stan

If I may give my unsolicited two cents as well, I agree, the biggest barrier to adoption is the roadblock of not understanding a system. And pharo and smalltalk are large complex systems that deviate from the average programming environment norm. For those that aren't paid to research, free time and energy to explore and accidentally gain an understanding of pharo is sparse and costly. Documentation is the only thing that can alleviate that problem. If good documentation allows for more people to use the system then you will have more developers helping out on the next iterations of pharo. Victor Stan On Apr 6, 2013 2:35 PM, "Thomas Worthington" <thomas(a)technouveau.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:10:26 +0100, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr> > wrote: > >> >> I'm also not attempting to say that those who are very active with Pharo >>> are bad programmers because documentation has become problematical - if >>> they are then I'm a bad programmer too - I just want to point out that a >>> system has even more need of documentation than a completed application and >>> *if it's possible* (and I know that finance is an issue in the real world) >>> then I think that updating the Pharo book(s) to a point where they describe >>> the current Pharo 2.0 state is FAR more important than work on Pharo 3.0. >>> >> >> >> We need both. Documentation is important, but just documenting a system >> that nobody needs makes no sense, either. >> >> > I would agree. I don't think that Pharo2.0 counts as a system that nobody > needs, though. I'm paid to develop for Moodle, a vast PHP-based e-learning > project and I can assure you that the world is full of people who need a > proper OO development system! > > Obviously there's a balance to be had, but I don't think that it's too > radical to suggest that a major version bump should be followed by a period > of consolidation in the documentation before proceeding. > > TW > >

April 6, 2013