September 2014 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!

by stepharo

> In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And > confusing. And silly. > It is not getting. It was like that already back in 1998 and before too. The syntax is one thing the libraries are another one! BTW I opened last year a VW from 1994 and I do not want to live there :) Stef

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!

by Ben Coman

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] timing problem

by Werner Kassens

Hi, On 09/06/2014 03:35 PM, Ben Coman wrote: > Just to be clear, by "did some calculations for an hour" do you mean the > Image basically locked up during the calculation, and the mouse clicks > were queued until the calculation ended? exactly, after the calculation different windows spring into the foreground, if i redo that. the strange thing though is, that the errormessages came during the calculation and although (they added up fast) i did not really look at them (i just cklicked them away, after having interrupted the program) in the end they originated from the browser. > Anyhow, there are two general approaches I am familiar with. > 1. Add " Processor yield " within your calculation loop. > 2. Run your calculation at a priority lower than the UI. For example, " > result := nil. calculationProcess := [ result := self myCalculation ] > forkAt: Processor userBackgroundPriority " , then periodically test for > " result ~= nil " , maybe from a "step" method in your own subclass of > some Morph. and what do i do after 'result ~= nil' ? <stupid grin> and what is the disadvantage of the simple first solution, i have to admit i never looked at these fork things? werner

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] timing problem

by Ben Coman

Werner Kassens wrote: > Hi, > i ran a program that did some calculations for about an hour. in > between i occasionally moved the cursor (so that the computer did not > go to sleep) and probably clicked occasionally on the browser. after > some time this resulted in several errors from the browser (the > program itself does nothing with the browser). when i tried to > reproduce this, the program ran flawlessly (i retried it in 4.0., as i > thought it happened there but perhaps it happened in 3.0, and btw it > was much faster in 4.0 than in earlier versions). now i wonder whether > i should regularly cede some time to other processes, and if yes, how > does one do that? > werner > > Just to be clear, by "did some calculations for an hour" do you mean the Image basically locked up during the calculation, and the mouse clicks were queued until the calculation ended? Anyhow, there are two general approaches I am familiar with. 1. Add " Processor yield " within your calculation loop. 2. Run your calculation at a priority lower than the UI. For example, " result := nil. calculationProcess := [ result := self myCalculation ] forkAt: Processor userBackgroundPriority " , then periodically test for " result ~= nil " , maybe from a "step" method in your own subclass of some Morph. cheers -ben

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!

by Sergi Reyner

In my opinion, this dialect thing is getting increasingly silly. And confusing. And silly. 2014-09-06 10:01 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > yesâ¦ 99% of the time Pharo and Squeak will be compatible. > we share the vm and a large part of the codebase. > but libraries are slowly diverging so you might find that what works in > the one does not works automatically in the other. > > but againâ¦ my point is that all smalltalks are dialectsâ¦ there is no such > thing as a reference implementation :) > > Esteban > > On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:54, PBKResearch <peter(a)pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote: > > I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many > practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am > using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which > was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin > Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow > assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak > repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now > working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were > developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the > Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability > problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user > interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or > at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the > libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk. > > In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves > Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard > Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from? > > Peter Kenny > > *From:* Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org > <pharo-users-bounces(a)lists.pharo.org>] *On Behalf Of *kilon alios > *Sent:* 05 September 2014 19:46 > *To:* Any question about pharo is welcome > *Subject:* Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk! > > AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where > it forks form. > > You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to > smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality > of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so > minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code > smalltalk-80 friendly. > > I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions > how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the > facts :) > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> > wrote: > > There is a long story about all that. > > But to be short: > - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other > Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80sâ¦ > - we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible. > > So yeah > > > On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh(a)kathe.in> wrote: > > > hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the > posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but > instead a dialect! > > > > is it true? > > > > that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable > to other smalltalk-80 systems! > > > > hmnn... > > > > ~mayuresh > > > > > > >

Sept. 6, 2014

timing problem

by Werner Kassens

Hi, i ran a program that did some calculations for about an hour. in between i occasionally moved the cursor (so that the computer did not go to sleep) and probably clicked occasionally on the browser. after some time this resulted in several errors from the browser (the program itself does nothing with the browser). when i tried to reproduce this, the program ran flawlessly (i retried it in 4.0., as i thought it happened there but perhaps it happened in 3.0, and btw it was much faster in 4.0 than in earlier versions). now i wonder whether i should regularly cede some time to other processes, and if yes, how does one do that? werner

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!

by Esteban Lorenzano

yesâ¦ 99% of the time Pharo and Squeak will be compatible. we share the vm and a large part of the codebase. but libraries are slowly diverging so you might find that what works in the one does not works automatically in the other. but againâ¦ my point is that all smalltalks are dialectsâ¦ there is no such thing as a reference implementation :) Esteban On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:54, PBKResearch <peter(a)pbkresearch.co.uk> wrote: > I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk. > > In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from? > > Peter Kenny > > From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of kilon alios > Sent: 05 September 2014 19:46 > To: Any question about pharo is welcome > Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk! > > AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form. > > You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly. > > I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :) > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > There is a long story about all that. > > But to be short: > - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80sâ¦ > - we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible. > > So yeah > > On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh(a)kathe.in> wrote: > > > hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect! > > > > is it true? > > > > that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems! > > > > hmnn... > > > > ~mayuresh > > > > >

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Syntax Error: Cannot store into

by Esteban Lorenzano

he, I missed that discussion :) good to know! Esteban On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:53, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Now that's not strange. > Thanks for info > > > 2014-09-06 11:49 GMT+03:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>: > If you missed our discussion with Marcus, Opal allowed constructs like that until week ago. > > Uko > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:46, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> You are right there is such a code. >> And it's really strange how it compiled earlier:) >> Thanks >> >> >> 2014-09-06 11:42 GMT+03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: >> well, this is weird :) >> the error you have is usually because you have something like this: >> >> myMethod: aParameter >> â¦ >> aParameter := something. >> â¦ >> >> (same can happen with blocks). >> >> you cannot assign a parameterâ¦ and compiler protests if you try. >> but I wander how you could introduce the problem the first time. Compiler should deny that kind of construction. >> >> Anyway, your fix is to change that :) >> >> Esteban >> >> On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:39, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Package of my project RewriteTool. >>> Here it is: http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~MarkRizun/RewriteTool/packages/RewriteTool >>> >>> >>> 2014-09-06 11:33 GMT+03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: >>> which package? >>> >>> >>> On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:28, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi everyone! >>> > >>> > When loading a package via Monticello, while compiling methods it gives an >>> > error: >>> > Syntax Error: Cannot store into and then a method. >>> > What does it mean? >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Mark >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Syntax-Error-Cannot-store-into-tp4776675.html >>> > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk!

by PBKResearch

I donât know what technical incompatibilities may exist, but for many practicalities Pharo is compatible with Squeak and other dialects. I am using an application (Todd Blanchardâs HTMCSS parser and validator) which was originally written for Squeak. Some years ago I ported it to Dolphin Smalltalk, with no change other than replacing Squeakâs left-arrow assignment with :=, and just two weeks ago I downloaded it from the Squeak repository on smalltalkhub.com and installed it in Pharo 3.0; it is now working perfectly with no changes from the Squeak version. If someone were developing such a package now in Pharo, it might be tempting to use the Zinc library for the input of web pages, and that might cause portability problems. Similarly, if you develop something with an elaborate user interface in Pharo, you may find that the UI code does not port easily (or at all). But the core language of Pharo (and the language in which the libraries are written) is definitely Smalltalk. In reply to Yuriy, there are languages around which do call themselves Smalltalk, but which do not implement essential parts of standard Smalltalk. So where does the âhave to make it compatibleâ come from? Peter Kenny From: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] On Behalf Of kilon alios Sent: 05 September 2014 19:46 To: Any question about pharo is welcome Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] not a smalltalk! AFAIK Pharo technically is not even compatible with Squeak which is where it forks form. You assume the code you write will automatically be incompatible to smalltalk-80 but since pretty much a huge percentage of the functionality of Pharo and Smalltalk is in libraries since the language itself is so minimal , I dont think it would be so hard to make your Pharo code smalltalk-80 friendly. I advice doing your own tests and seeing for yourself. Then ask questions how to solve problems you encounter. No reason to panic before facing the facts :) On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com <mailto:yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> > wrote: There is a long story about all that. But to be short: - if you call it Smalltalk then you have to make it compatible with other Smalltalks. And they are a lot in the 80sâ¦ - we want to make something new and cool what may be not always compatible. So yeah On 05 Sep 2014, at 20:25, Mayuresh Kathe <mayuresh(a)kathe.in <mailto:mayuresh@kathe.in> > wrote: > hey, i've just been reading up the pharo forums, and one of the posts/entries mentions something about pharo not being a smalltalk, but instead a dialect! > > is it true? > > that would mean, all or any code i write for pharo would not be portable to other smalltalk-80 systems! > > hmnn... > > ~mayuresh > >

Sept. 6, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Syntax Error: Cannot store into

by Mark Rizun

Now that's not strange. Thanks for info 2014-09-06 11:49 GMT+03:00 Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com>: > If you missed our discussion with Marcus, Opal allowed constructs like > that until week ago. > > Uko > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:46, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You are right there is such a code. > And it's really strange how it compiled earlier:) > Thanks > > > 2014-09-06 11:42 GMT+03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: > >> well, this is weird :) >> the error you have is usually because you have something like this: >> >> myMethod: aParameter >> â¦ >> aParameter := something. >> â¦ >> >> (same can happen with blocks). >> >> you cannot assign a parameterâ¦ and compiler protests if you try. >> but I wander how you could introduce the problem the first time. Compiler >> should deny that kind of construction. >> >> Anyway, your fix is to change that :) >> >> Esteban >> >> On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:39, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Package of my project RewriteTool. >> Here it is: >> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~MarkRizun/RewriteTool/packages/RewriteTool >> >> >> 2014-09-06 11:33 GMT+03:00 Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm(a)gmail.com>: >> >>> which package? >>> >>> >>> On 06 Sep 2014, at 10:28, Mark Rizun <mrizun(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi everyone! >>> > >>> > When loading a package via Monticello, while compiling methods it >>> gives an >>> > error: >>> > Syntax Error: Cannot store into and then a method. >>> > What does it mean? >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > Mark >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/Syntax-Error-Cannot-store-into-tp4776675.html >>> > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com >>> . >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >

Sept. 6, 2014