Pharo-users

By thread

pharo-users@lists.pharo.org

December 2015

85 participants
655 messages

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

by Juraj Kubelka

Hi Christophe, Not yet, but this is definitely way to improve Spotter. Thanks for the comment, Juraj -- Juraj Kubelka 8. 12. 2015 v 5:10, Christophe Demarey <Christophe.Demarey(a)inria.fr>: > Hi, > > By the way, is it possible to have exact match now? > At least, I expect to have expect match on the top of the result list. > A simple use case, > open Spotter > search number > dive into implementors category > > The exact matches are lost in the middle of hundreds of other selectors. This way, it is very difficult to find what you need. > It is also why I always need to open a playground to be able to search all implementors of a selector. It is not do-able with spotter without an exact match. > > That said, I have to add that I really enjoy spotter and other GT tools :) > > Christophe > > >> Le 8 dÃ©c. 2015 Ã 01:56, Juraj Kubelka a Ã©crit : >> >> >>> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: >>> >>>> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> #<anything> is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc. >>> >>> Oh... right. I've been using this for long time, my brain just didn't >>> connect the dots. >>> >>> In either case, once you dive in the category filter is no longer >>> applicable. >>> So normally I would do "#i selector", then dive in, and then filter it. >>> >>>> Then I have learnt that people are not aware of [...] any other kind of wild-characters. >>> >>> People don't know what wild-chars are? I would understand that someone >>> might be uncomfortable with regexps, because there are many variations, but wildcharsâ¦ >> >> Well, some people asks for regular expressions, some people asks for wild-characters, some people prefers other techniques. >> In most cases people are satisfied with substring solution as it is right now. In some special cases people thinks about more advance solution. >> I believe that we should sort results according to relevance, e.g., if I write open, then selectors called open should be first, then likely openOn:, openWithSpec:, openVeryLongExplanation:, etc. >> >> Cheers, >> Juraj >> >>> >>>> >>>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> are there some wildcards in GTSpotter matching? >>>>> >>>>> Currently it searches anywhere in the (method) name, which makes it hard >>>>> for shorter names, because it will match a lot of junk. >>>>> >>>>> I've also discovered (by accident), that I can use '>>#selector' to >>>>> anchor the start of the selection. ('#selector' for some reason doesn't >>>>> work). >>>>> But I would like to also search by a simple ? (any character), * (any >>>>> characters) wildcard. Is that possible? >>>>> >>>>> Additionally constraining it from the end would be also nice. >>>>> For example I want to look through #default methods, however 90% of the >>>>> matches will be junk, so I would like to write '#default$' and it will >>>>> not match '#defaultIcon', etc. >>>>> >>>>> Is this possible? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter >>> >> >> >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] #storeOn: question

by stepharo

Thanks Werner! Stef Le 3/12/15 13:00, Werner Kassens a Ã©crit : > Hi Stephane, > there are 89 senders of #storeOn: minus around 30 implementations of > #storeOn: minus around 10 tests, also things like the > PharoChangesCondenser use it. then there are 26 senders of > #storeString (essentially the same functionality implemented via > #storeOn:, but returns a string) eg used by the > StartupPreferencesLoader. and there are several senders of #store: > that are not implementations of #storeOn:. iow deprecating #storeOn: > looks a bit complicated to me and is obviously way above my head. > werner > > On 11/30/2015 09:42 PM, stepharo wrote: >> It would be good to check who is using that and evaluate if we can >> remove it. > >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Stop Thinking in Terms of Files

by Dimitris Chloupis

yes it got lost in my many and long posts. I am already working with Fuel and as I said I am very happy with it. I completely agree that whether its files or flying elephants as long as it does the job in a simple and flexible enough way its a good choice. To summarise for those not wanting to read my long posts my motivation to write all these posts is that I disagree with the OP and the original blog post linked because : *1) files and especially file formats are extremely useful * *2) definitely not in the Stone Age as the original author claims because they already solve myriads of modern practical problems that the image does not* *3) file formats define a concrete way of representing data and code that the image usually does not abide because its format is far more abstract* *4) files in no way interfere with the mission of Smalltalk and Pharo to present a live coding environment to the user that is easily accessible , since there are many examples of files that can store live code and state but even dead code and data can easily be turned to live. * *Summary argument: Files are awesome and Pharo loves files and so do I :) * On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:12 AM Thierry Goubier <thierry.goubier(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Kilon, > > I think what you are describing as a need for you is the ability to > directly load into an image chunks of image memory space, containing > already initialized images and code (i.e. live objects stored one way or > another). Fuel could be an answer to that (wasn't that Tanker, the Fuel for > code?). > > Now, whether those are files or not does not concern me. Give me raw > blocks on a disk or magic requests to do over a network to get those image > chunks and I'll be happy. > > Thierry > > 2015-12-08 1:06 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > >> You could not ask the worst case person even if you wanted :D >> >> But here we go ... >> >> Will depend , let take my ChronosManager for example >> >> To modify the existing code of ChronosManager , is just text that gets >> compiled to bytecode immediately on each accept, no need to be loaded from >> a file, even though it gets added to the source and changes files. >> >> To add code to the image whether its the entire code of ChronosManager or >> just a commit, it will load the code from st files, plus the extra filetree >> metadata files for class definition, version control and method >> categorization. I use Github but its a very similar story for those using >> Smalltalkhub. >> >> To add code that contains data like an image, like I do with the GUI >> resources , I use a large collection of PNG files which with the help of >> the IconFactory will compile the binary data to a bytecode string and also >> pass it as a form to be used immediately. I am thinking instead to replace >> the iconfactory with direct access to the png files and creation of the >> form or a need to exist basis. Lazy loading in short. >> >> In the future that I will need a common ground for all the images that >> use ChronoManager to share data and live state , I will be using fuel >> files. >> >> For Ephestos (ChronosManager is part of the Ephestos project) that has >> to deal with 3d data, the collection of files grow exponentially which I >> try to keep outside the image because that data can easily reach several >> GBs and I dont want the image to explode in my face. To give you an example >> one folder I have with several blender files is around 2 gbs tops, each >> file being more than 250 MB. Blend files by the way implement their own >> kind of "object orientation" even though Blender is largely coded in C. >> >> So if you ask me how many files I have to pass to the opal compiler if >> all I wanted is to stick just with the image my answer would be "a ton" but >> its a moot a point since the image cant handle so much data anyway. But >> even in the current scenario, its still a lot of files if you count the >> pngs and the repository . >> >> I actually now try to remove my dependency on SmaCC because it makes the >> load time very slow, apparently compilation of large projects in the image >> is super slow and I will divert the parsing back to the python side which >> is way faster and since its python syntax i am parsing, python is really >> good at it anyway and helps me remove one unnecessary dependency. Though I >> have to say I am very happy with SmaCC and its great to have it around. >> >> In the future I predict that I will have to keep more and more things >> into files to make loading of Ephestos fast and also its execution because >> image is not really optimized for what I want it to use it for. >> >> So in my case, its files all the way ! >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:09 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >>> Just one simple question... >>> When you want Pharo to compile some code, which *file* do you pass to >>> our Opal compiler? >>> >>> cheers -ben >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > The devil is in the details ;) >>> > >>> > It matters to me, I just came across the need to share data between >>> multiple >>> > images. So I was pointed by the good people here to the Fuel library >>> that , >>> > surprise surprise , it generates binary files that contain objects in >>> their >>> > live state that helps you move and share code and data between images. >>> Works >>> > well and I really like its design :) >>> > >>> > We are not talking here about something sophisticated, we are talking >>> here >>> > super basic functionality. Images sharing data and code. What we use ? >>> > Files. The image by itself has no functionality to even cover this >>> super >>> > basic scenario because as a format is made to be self contained. >>> > >>> > How you cant even care for such basic functionality ? Of course you >>> will at >>> > some point. Its unavoidable. >>> > >>> > The nice thing about files is that they have one very big advantage >>> over the >>> > image. That is, specialization. When an app find a specific file , >>> just by >>> > looking at its extension it immediately knows the structure of the >>> data and >>> > the code that it may contain. >>> > >>> > On other hand when you have an object system like the image is, such >>> > specifications go outside the window meaning you have to deal with the >>> fact >>> > and trust that those that made those images have adhered to specific >>> > guidelines so you can make sure that your code wont run in front of >>> some >>> > very nasty surprises. >>> > >>> > But since the image itself allow you hack so deeply as the syntax of >>> the >>> > language , you can't be sure how the data and code will be presented. >>> Sure >>> > they will objects, but the format does not really matter so much as the >>> > structure itself. >>> > >>> > In those cases files win hands down because they tend to be far more >>> > restricted on how they are structured. Not because there is anything >>> special >>> > to these files, apart from the fact that their authors made sure to >>> follow >>> > the specific structure to ensure compatibility with third party apps. >>> > >>> > So not only Files are not on the Stone Age but they have evolved the >>> level >>> > of specification to a whole new level that have made the foundation of >>> our >>> > every day lives. >>> > >>> > Sure you could probably replace files with a new way that is more >>> Smalltalk >>> > friendly and still retain all the advantages of files and file system >>> but , >>> > Smalltalk has not presented such solution to my knowledge. Hence we the >>> > smalltalkers we will still keep relying heavily on files for our every >>> day >>> > needs until such solution is presented to us. Also with the huge >>> wealth of >>> > file formats it would be a pain in the ass to replace them with a >>> smalltalk >>> > solution. >>> > >>> > In the mean time there are even more pressing matter that the image >>> file has >>> > to attend to, which is far more stone age , to use your remark , than >>> files. >>> > That is the ability to use full memory of the system and the ability >>> to deal >>> > with large data without any large hits on performance. In short good >>> support >>> > for 64 bit and big data. >>> > >>> > >>> > "But these are implementation details...implementation of the base >>> system. >>> > /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of >>> this >>> > matters. >>> > >>> > As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with >>> files at >>> > all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our >>> culture >>> > is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in >>> them, >>> > and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage >>> abstraction >>> > as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the >>> Stone >>> > Age!" >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:45 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> But these are implementation details...implementation of the base >>> system. >>> >> /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of >>> >> this >>> >> matters. >>> >> >>> >> As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with >>> files at >>> >> all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our >>> culture >>> >> is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in >>> >> them, >>> >> and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage >>> >> abstraction >>> >> as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the >>> >> Stone >>> >> Age! >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> kilon.alios wrote >>> >> > That's the thing you can't take the argument further without >>> diminishing >>> >> > the value of you argument precisely for the fact that the vm is far >>> >> > closer >>> >> > related to the image than it is to 0s and 1s. That tight relation is >>> >> > fundamental to the behavior and existence of the image. It defines >>> its >>> >> > functionality, purpose and limitations. >>> >> > >>> >> > The image itself is a file and the fact that it can store live >>> state in >>> >> > a >>> >> > binary format does not make it unique or any less of a file. In my >>> case >>> >> > I >>> >> > use blender files, they store the entire live state of the blender >>> >> > window >>> >> > including images and even Python scripts. Similar examples are >>> countless >>> >> > out there. >>> >> > >>> >> > So the answer to the question what makes the image file format >>> unique is >>> >> > simply.... Nothing >>> >> > What's the advantage of using the image format compared to other >>> files ? >>> >> > None >>> >> > >>> >> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 at 15:14, Ben Coman < >>> >> >>> >> > btc@ >>> >> >>> >> > > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Dimitris Chloupis < >>> >> >>> >> > kilon.alios@ >>> >> >>> >> > > >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> > "A Smalltalk Image is your entire system. The Image includes all >>> the >>> >> >> tools >>> >> >> > required to interact, customize and add functionality to your >>> system, >>> >> >> so >>> >> >> > Smalltalkâs IDE is a very Integrated Development Environment." >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Thats not the case even for someone like me that has been working >>> >> >> > with >>> >> >> > smalltalk for only 2 years. The Image is not even the engine that >>> >> >> drives >>> >> >> > smalltalk . Thats the job of the VM that exists in a completely >>> >> >> different >>> >> >> > universe than smalltalk. It exists in the same universe than many >>> >> >> > other >>> >> >> > languages do exists and thats the C universe, the universe of >>> the OS. >>> >> >> > Essentially what drives your system is not smalltalk is C. The >>> >> >> diffirence is >>> >> >> > that for a part of it that is high level enough, Slang is used, a >>> >> >> Hybrid >>> >> >> > language between C and Smalltalk that compiles to C. So while in >>> the >>> >> >> image >>> >> >> > everything is , well almost everything, an object all the way >>> down, >>> >> >> > in >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> > VM everything is C all the way down. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> To take that argument further, the VM is not even the thing driving >>> >> >> the image ;). Essentially what drives it are the 1's and 0's of >>> >> >> machine code. Further, what drives that are the electrons flowing >>> >> >> through the chip. I think its fair to say that we *code* in Pharo >>> >> >> without files. Files relate to Pharo only to the same extent that >>> a >>> >> >> database like Oracle or Postgres can be said to use files. That >>> is, >>> >> >> when you do SQL queries, are you *thinking* in terms of files, even >>> >> >> though files are used by the server to store the data? Its just a >>> >> >> matter of where you draw the line of abstraction. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> cheers -ben >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > Ironically an image misses the most important tool to even >>> generate >>> >> >> this >>> >> >> C >>> >> >> > code and thats the VMMaker that has to be installed separately. >>> And >>> >> >> > of >>> >> >> > course there are parts of the system that are coded in pure C, >>> like >>> >> >> some >>> >> >> > core functionalities of the VM and of course plugins and external >>> >> >> libraries >>> >> >> > that the image has to rely on make things happen. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Of course the image is still fairly powerful, you can change the >>> >> >> syntax, >>> >> >> > implement high level libraries, IDE tools and much more. But its >>> not >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> > core of the system just another essential part of it. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:24 AM Dimitris Chloupis < >>> >> >>> >> > kilon.alios@ >>> >> >>> >> > > >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> well, i wouldn't need or even want it in memory, so on disk is >>> >> >> >>> fine. >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> >>> problem is more likely management of the same. browsing the >>> changes >>> >> >> is >>> >> >> >>> not >>> >> >> >>> really convenient. ideally i'd like to see versions in the >>> >> >> class-browser >>> >> >> >>> and >>> >> >> >>> in the debugger, where on error i could then take a look at >>> older >>> >> >> >>> versions for >>> >> >> >>> comparison, and switch to them to see if maybe the last change >>> was >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> >>> cause of >>> >> >> >>> the error. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> greetings, martin. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> There are versions already for methods. So the functionality is >>> >> >> >> there. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I disagree however with you, I think that changes file was >>> created >>> >> >> >> for >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> >> precise scenarios of an image crash/ lockdown. In that case you >>> may >>> >> >> want to >>> >> >> >> go back through the code and dont remember which method was >>> >> >> >> triggered >>> >> >> or >>> >> >> >> what else was defined and created. In the case going >>> chronologically >>> >> >> which >>> >> >> >> is how the changes file is already organised is far more useful >>> than >>> >> >> going >>> >> >> >> method and class based. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> But I do agree it would be useful to extend the tools working >>> with >>> >> >> changes >>> >> >> >> , but then none stop anyone from doing so and is not that hard >>> to >>> >> >> >> do. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> View this message in context: >>> >> >>> http://forum.world.st/Stop-Thinking-in-Terms-of-Files-tp4865614p4865820.html >>> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at >>> Nabble.com. >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Stop Thinking in Terms of Files

by Dimitris Chloupis

:) Ironically all this discussion is something I have done already with myself to find a good way to be productive with the problems I try to solve with pharo. So by all mean, do so , and share ;) On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:50 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > Fair enough ;p > Now I'll get back doing something productive > cheers -ben > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > You could not ask the worst case person even if you wanted :D > > > > But here we go ... > > > > Will depend , let take my ChronosManager for example > > > > To modify the existing code of ChronosManager , is just text that gets > > compiled to bytecode immediately on each accept, no need to be loaded > from a > > file, even though it gets added to the source and changes files. > > > > To add code to the image whether its the entire code of ChronosManager or > > just a commit, it will load the code from st files, plus the extra > filetree > > metadata files for class definition, version control and method > > categorization. I use Github but its a very similar story for those using > > Smalltalkhub. > > > > To add code that contains data like an image, like I do with the GUI > > resources , I use a large collection of PNG files which with the help of > the > > IconFactory will compile the binary data to a bytecode string and also > pass > > it as a form to be used immediately. I am thinking instead to replace the > > iconfactory with direct access to the png files and creation of the form > or > > a need to exist basis. Lazy loading in short. > > > > In the future that I will need a common ground for all the images that > use > > ChronoManager to share data and live state , I will be using fuel files. > > > > For Ephestos (ChronosManager is part of the Ephestos project) that has > to > > deal with 3d data, the collection of files grow exponentially which I > try to > > keep outside the image because that data can easily reach several GBs > and I > > dont want the image to explode in my face. To give you an example one > folder > > I have with several blender files is around 2 gbs tops, each file being > more > > than 250 MB. Blend files by the way implement their own kind of "object > > orientation" even though Blender is largely coded in C. > > > > So if you ask me how many files I have to pass to the opal compiler if > all I > > wanted is to stick just with the image my answer would be "a ton" but > its a > > moot a point since the image cant handle so much data anyway. But even in > > the current scenario, its still a lot of files if you count the pngs and > the > > repository . > > > > I actually now try to remove my dependency on SmaCC because it makes the > > load time very slow, apparently compilation of large projects in the > image > > is super slow and I will divert the parsing back to the python side > which is > > way faster and since its python syntax i am parsing, python is really > good > > at it anyway and helps me remove one unnecessary dependency. Though I > have > > to say I am very happy with SmaCC and its great to have it around. > > > > In the future I predict that I will have to keep more and more things > into > > files to make loading of Ephestos fast and also its execution because > image > > is not really optimized for what I want it to use it for. > > > > So in my case, its files all the way ! > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:09 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >> > >> Just one simple question... > >> When you want Pharo to compile some code, which *file* do you pass to > >> our Opal compiler? > >> > >> cheers -ben > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Dimitris Chloupis < > kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > The devil is in the details ;) > >> > > >> > It matters to me, I just came across the need to share data between > >> > multiple > >> > images. So I was pointed by the good people here to the Fuel library > >> > that , > >> > surprise surprise , it generates binary files that contain objects in > >> > their > >> > live state that helps you move and share code and data between images. > >> > Works > >> > well and I really like its design :) > >> > > >> > We are not talking here about something sophisticated, we are talking > >> > here > >> > super basic functionality. Images sharing data and code. What we use ? > >> > Files. The image by itself has no functionality to even cover this > super > >> > basic scenario because as a format is made to be self contained. > >> > > >> > How you cant even care for such basic functionality ? Of course you > will > >> > at > >> > some point. Its unavoidable. > >> > > >> > The nice thing about files is that they have one very big advantage > over > >> > the > >> > image. That is, specialization. When an app find a specific file , > just > >> > by > >> > looking at its extension it immediately knows the structure of the > data > >> > and > >> > the code that it may contain. > >> > > >> > On other hand when you have an object system like the image is, such > >> > specifications go outside the window meaning you have to deal with the > >> > fact > >> > and trust that those that made those images have adhered to specific > >> > guidelines so you can make sure that your code wont run in front of > some > >> > very nasty surprises. > >> > > >> > But since the image itself allow you hack so deeply as the syntax of > the > >> > language , you can't be sure how the data and code will be presented. > >> > Sure > >> > they will objects, but the format does not really matter so much as > the > >> > structure itself. > >> > > >> > In those cases files win hands down because they tend to be far more > >> > restricted on how they are structured. Not because there is anything > >> > special > >> > to these files, apart from the fact that their authors made sure to > >> > follow > >> > the specific structure to ensure compatibility with third party apps. > >> > > >> > So not only Files are not on the Stone Age but they have evolved the > >> > level > >> > of specification to a whole new level that have made the foundation of > >> > our > >> > every day lives. > >> > > >> > Sure you could probably replace files with a new way that is more > >> > Smalltalk > >> > friendly and still retain all the advantages of files and file system > >> > but , > >> > Smalltalk has not presented such solution to my knowledge. Hence we > the > >> > smalltalkers we will still keep relying heavily on files for our every > >> > day > >> > needs until such solution is presented to us. Also with the huge > wealth > >> > of > >> > file formats it would be a pain in the ass to replace them with a > >> > smalltalk > >> > solution. > >> > > >> > In the mean time there are even more pressing matter that the image > file > >> > has > >> > to attend to, which is far more stone age , to use your remark , than > >> > files. > >> > That is the ability to use full memory of the system and the ability > to > >> > deal > >> > with large data without any large hits on performance. In short good > >> > support > >> > for 64 bit and big data. > >> > > >> > > >> > "But these are implementation details...implementation of the base > >> > system. > >> > /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of > >> > this > >> > matters. > >> > > >> > As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with > files > >> > at > >> > all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our > >> > culture > >> > is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in > >> > them, > >> > and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage > >> > abstraction > >> > as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the > >> > Stone > >> > Age!" > >> > > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:45 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> But these are implementation details...implementation of the base > >> >> system. > >> >> /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none > of > >> >> this > >> >> matters. > >> >> > >> >> As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with > files > >> >> at > >> >> all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our > >> >> culture > >> >> is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in > >> >> them, > >> >> and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage > >> >> abstraction > >> >> as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in > the > >> >> Stone > >> >> Age! > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> kilon.alios wrote > >> >> > That's the thing you can't take the argument further without > >> >> > diminishing > >> >> > the value of you argument precisely for the fact that the vm is far > >> >> > closer > >> >> > related to the image than it is to 0s and 1s. That tight relation > is > >> >> > fundamental to the behavior and existence of the image. It defines > >> >> > its > >> >> > functionality, purpose and limitations. > >> >> > > >> >> > The image itself is a file and the fact that it can store live > state > >> >> > in > >> >> > a > >> >> > binary format does not make it unique or any less of a file. In my > >> >> > case > >> >> > I > >> >> > use blender files, they store the entire live state of the blender > >> >> > window > >> >> > including images and even Python scripts. Similar examples are > >> >> > countless > >> >> > out there. > >> >> > > >> >> > So the answer to the question what makes the image file format > unique > >> >> > is > >> >> > simply.... Nothing > >> >> > What's the advantage of using the image format compared to other > >> >> > files ? > >> >> > None > >> >> > > >> >> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 at 15:14, Ben Coman < > >> >> > >> >> > btc@ > >> >> > >> >> > > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Dimitris Chloupis < > >> >> > >> >> > kilon.alios@ > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > "A Smalltalk Image is your entire system. The Image includes all > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> tools > >> >> >> > required to interact, customize and add functionality to your > >> >> >> > system, > >> >> >> so > >> >> >> > Smalltalkâs IDE is a very Integrated Development Environment." > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Thats not the case even for someone like me that has been > working > >> >> >> > with > >> >> >> > smalltalk for only 2 years. The Image is not even the engine > that > >> >> >> drives > >> >> >> > smalltalk . Thats the job of the VM that exists in a completely > >> >> >> different > >> >> >> > universe than smalltalk. It exists in the same universe than > many > >> >> >> > other > >> >> >> > languages do exists and thats the C universe, the universe of > the > >> >> >> > OS. > >> >> >> > Essentially what drives your system is not smalltalk is C. The > >> >> >> diffirence is > >> >> >> > that for a part of it that is high level enough, Slang is used, > a > >> >> >> Hybrid > >> >> >> > language between C and Smalltalk that compiles to C. So while in > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> image > >> >> >> > everything is , well almost everything, an object all the way > >> >> >> > down, > >> >> >> > in > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> > VM everything is C all the way down. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> To take that argument further, the VM is not even the thing > driving > >> >> >> the image ;). Essentially what drives it are the 1's and 0's of > >> >> >> machine code. Further, what drives that are the electrons flowing > >> >> >> through the chip. I think its fair to say that we *code* in Pharo > >> >> >> without files. Files relate to Pharo only to the same extent > that a > >> >> >> database like Oracle or Postgres can be said to use files. That > is, > >> >> >> when you do SQL queries, are you *thinking* in terms of files, > even > >> >> >> though files are used by the server to store the data? Its just a > >> >> >> matter of where you draw the line of abstraction. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> cheers -ben > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Ironically an image misses the most important tool to even > >> >> >> > generate > >> >> >> this > >> >> >> C > >> >> >> > code and thats the VMMaker that has to be installed separately. > >> >> >> > And > >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> > course there are parts of the system that are coded in pure C, > >> >> >> > like > >> >> >> some > >> >> >> > core functionalities of the VM and of course plugins and > external > >> >> >> libraries > >> >> >> > that the image has to rely on make things happen. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Of course the image is still fairly powerful, you can change the > >> >> >> syntax, > >> >> >> > implement high level libraries, IDE tools and much more. But its > >> >> >> > not > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> > core of the system just another essential part of it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:24 AM Dimitris Chloupis < > >> >> > >> >> > kilon.alios@ > >> >> > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> well, i wouldn't need or even want it in memory, so on disk is > >> >> >> >>> fine. > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >>> problem is more likely management of the same. browsing the > >> >> >> >>> changes > >> >> >> is > >> >> >> >>> not > >> >> >> >>> really convenient. ideally i'd like to see versions in the > >> >> >> class-browser > >> >> >> >>> and > >> >> >> >>> in the debugger, where on error i could then take a look at > >> >> >> >>> older > >> >> >> >>> versions for > >> >> >> >>> comparison, and switch to them to see if maybe the last change > >> >> >> >>> was > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >>> cause of > >> >> >> >>> the error. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> greetings, martin. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> There are versions already for methods. So the functionality is > >> >> >> >> there. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I disagree however with you, I think that changes file was > >> >> >> >> created > >> >> >> >> for > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> precise scenarios of an image crash/ lockdown. In that case you > >> >> >> >> may > >> >> >> want to > >> >> >> >> go back through the code and dont remember which method was > >> >> >> >> triggered > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> what else was defined and created. In the case going > >> >> >> >> chronologically > >> >> >> which > >> >> >> >> is how the changes file is already organised is far more useful > >> >> >> >> than > >> >> >> going > >> >> >> >> method and class based. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> But I do agree it would be useful to extend the tools working > >> >> >> >> with > >> >> >> changes > >> >> >> >> , but then none stop anyone from doing so and is not that hard > to > >> >> >> >> do. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> View this message in context: > >> >> > >> >> > http://forum.world.st/Stop-Thinking-in-Terms-of-Files-tp4865614p4865820.html > >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Stop Thinking in Terms of Files

by Thierry Goubier

Hi Kilon, I think what you are describing as a need for you is the ability to directly load into an image chunks of image memory space, containing already initialized images and code (i.e. live objects stored one way or another). Fuel could be an answer to that (wasn't that Tanker, the Fuel for code?). Now, whether those are files or not does not concern me. Give me raw blocks on a disk or magic requests to do over a network to get those image chunks and I'll be happy. Thierry 2015-12-08 1:06 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com>: > You could not ask the worst case person even if you wanted :D > > But here we go ... > > Will depend , let take my ChronosManager for example > > To modify the existing code of ChronosManager , is just text that gets > compiled to bytecode immediately on each accept, no need to be loaded from > a file, even though it gets added to the source and changes files. > > To add code to the image whether its the entire code of ChronosManager or > just a commit, it will load the code from st files, plus the extra filetree > metadata files for class definition, version control and method > categorization. I use Github but its a very similar story for those using > Smalltalkhub. > > To add code that contains data like an image, like I do with the GUI > resources , I use a large collection of PNG files which with the help of > the IconFactory will compile the binary data to a bytecode string and also > pass it as a form to be used immediately. I am thinking instead to replace > the iconfactory with direct access to the png files and creation of the > form or a need to exist basis. Lazy loading in short. > > In the future that I will need a common ground for all the images that use > ChronoManager to share data and live state , I will be using fuel files. > > For Ephestos (ChronosManager is part of the Ephestos project) that has to > deal with 3d data, the collection of files grow exponentially which I try > to keep outside the image because that data can easily reach several GBs > and I dont want the image to explode in my face. To give you an example one > folder I have with several blender files is around 2 gbs tops, each file > being more than 250 MB. Blend files by the way implement their own kind of > "object orientation" even though Blender is largely coded in C. > > So if you ask me how many files I have to pass to the opal compiler if all > I wanted is to stick just with the image my answer would be "a ton" but its > a moot a point since the image cant handle so much data anyway. But even in > the current scenario, its still a lot of files if you count the pngs and > the repository . > > I actually now try to remove my dependency on SmaCC because it makes the > load time very slow, apparently compilation of large projects in the image > is super slow and I will divert the parsing back to the python side which > is way faster and since its python syntax i am parsing, python is really > good at it anyway and helps me remove one unnecessary dependency. Though I > have to say I am very happy with SmaCC and its great to have it around. > > In the future I predict that I will have to keep more and more things into > files to make loading of Ephestos fast and also its execution because image > is not really optimized for what I want it to use it for. > > So in my case, its files all the way ! > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:09 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: > >> Just one simple question... >> When you want Pharo to compile some code, which *file* do you pass to >> our Opal compiler? >> >> cheers -ben >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > The devil is in the details ;) >> > >> > It matters to me, I just came across the need to share data between >> multiple >> > images. So I was pointed by the good people here to the Fuel library >> that , >> > surprise surprise , it generates binary files that contain objects in >> their >> > live state that helps you move and share code and data between images. >> Works >> > well and I really like its design :) >> > >> > We are not talking here about something sophisticated, we are talking >> here >> > super basic functionality. Images sharing data and code. What we use ? >> > Files. The image by itself has no functionality to even cover this super >> > basic scenario because as a format is made to be self contained. >> > >> > How you cant even care for such basic functionality ? Of course you >> will at >> > some point. Its unavoidable. >> > >> > The nice thing about files is that they have one very big advantage >> over the >> > image. That is, specialization. When an app find a specific file , just >> by >> > looking at its extension it immediately knows the structure of the data >> and >> > the code that it may contain. >> > >> > On other hand when you have an object system like the image is, such >> > specifications go outside the window meaning you have to deal with the >> fact >> > and trust that those that made those images have adhered to specific >> > guidelines so you can make sure that your code wont run in front of some >> > very nasty surprises. >> > >> > But since the image itself allow you hack so deeply as the syntax of the >> > language , you can't be sure how the data and code will be presented. >> Sure >> > they will objects, but the format does not really matter so much as the >> > structure itself. >> > >> > In those cases files win hands down because they tend to be far more >> > restricted on how they are structured. Not because there is anything >> special >> > to these files, apart from the fact that their authors made sure to >> follow >> > the specific structure to ensure compatibility with third party apps. >> > >> > So not only Files are not on the Stone Age but they have evolved the >> level >> > of specification to a whole new level that have made the foundation of >> our >> > every day lives. >> > >> > Sure you could probably replace files with a new way that is more >> Smalltalk >> > friendly and still retain all the advantages of files and file system >> but , >> > Smalltalk has not presented such solution to my knowledge. Hence we the >> > smalltalkers we will still keep relying heavily on files for our every >> day >> > needs until such solution is presented to us. Also with the huge wealth >> of >> > file formats it would be a pain in the ass to replace them with a >> smalltalk >> > solution. >> > >> > In the mean time there are even more pressing matter that the image >> file has >> > to attend to, which is far more stone age , to use your remark , than >> files. >> > That is the ability to use full memory of the system and the ability to >> deal >> > with large data without any large hits on performance. In short good >> support >> > for 64 bit and big data. >> > >> > >> > "But these are implementation details...implementation of the base >> system. >> > /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of >> this >> > matters. >> > >> > As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with files >> at >> > all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our >> culture >> > is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in >> them, >> > and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage >> abstraction >> > as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the >> Stone >> > Age!" >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:45 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> But these are implementation details...implementation of the base >> system. >> >> /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of >> >> this >> >> matters. >> >> >> >> As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with >> files at >> >> all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our >> culture >> >> is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in >> >> them, >> >> and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage >> >> abstraction >> >> as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the >> >> Stone >> >> Age! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> kilon.alios wrote >> >> > That's the thing you can't take the argument further without >> diminishing >> >> > the value of you argument precisely for the fact that the vm is far >> >> > closer >> >> > related to the image than it is to 0s and 1s. That tight relation is >> >> > fundamental to the behavior and existence of the image. It defines >> its >> >> > functionality, purpose and limitations. >> >> > >> >> > The image itself is a file and the fact that it can store live state >> in >> >> > a >> >> > binary format does not make it unique or any less of a file. In my >> case >> >> > I >> >> > use blender files, they store the entire live state of the blender >> >> > window >> >> > including images and even Python scripts. Similar examples are >> countless >> >> > out there. >> >> > >> >> > So the answer to the question what makes the image file format >> unique is >> >> > simply.... Nothing >> >> > What's the advantage of using the image format compared to other >> files ? >> >> > None >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 at 15:14, Ben Coman < >> >> >> >> > btc@ >> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Dimitris Chloupis < >> >> >> >> > kilon.alios@ >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > "A Smalltalk Image is your entire system. The Image includes all >> the >> >> >> tools >> >> >> > required to interact, customize and add functionality to your >> system, >> >> >> so >> >> >> > Smalltalkâs IDE is a very Integrated Development Environment." >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thats not the case even for someone like me that has been working >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > smalltalk for only 2 years. The Image is not even the engine that >> >> >> drives >> >> >> > smalltalk . Thats the job of the VM that exists in a completely >> >> >> different >> >> >> > universe than smalltalk. It exists in the same universe than many >> >> >> > other >> >> >> > languages do exists and thats the C universe, the universe of the >> OS. >> >> >> > Essentially what drives your system is not smalltalk is C. The >> >> >> diffirence is >> >> >> > that for a part of it that is high level enough, Slang is used, a >> >> >> Hybrid >> >> >> > language between C and Smalltalk that compiles to C. So while in >> the >> >> >> image >> >> >> > everything is , well almost everything, an object all the way >> down, >> >> >> > in >> >> >> the >> >> >> > VM everything is C all the way down. >> >> >> >> >> >> To take that argument further, the VM is not even the thing driving >> >> >> the image ;). Essentially what drives it are the 1's and 0's of >> >> >> machine code. Further, what drives that are the electrons flowing >> >> >> through the chip. I think its fair to say that we *code* in Pharo >> >> >> without files. Files relate to Pharo only to the same extent that a >> >> >> database like Oracle or Postgres can be said to use files. That is, >> >> >> when you do SQL queries, are you *thinking* in terms of files, even >> >> >> though files are used by the server to store the data? Its just a >> >> >> matter of where you draw the line of abstraction. >> >> >> >> >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ironically an image misses the most important tool to even >> generate >> >> >> this >> >> >> C >> >> >> > code and thats the VMMaker that has to be installed separately. >> And >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > course there are parts of the system that are coded in pure C, >> like >> >> >> some >> >> >> > core functionalities of the VM and of course plugins and external >> >> >> libraries >> >> >> > that the image has to rely on make things happen. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Of course the image is still fairly powerful, you can change the >> >> >> syntax, >> >> >> > implement high level libraries, IDE tools and much more. But its >> not >> >> >> the >> >> >> > core of the system just another essential part of it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:24 AM Dimitris Chloupis < >> >> >> >> > kilon.alios@ >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> well, i wouldn't need or even want it in memory, so on disk is >> >> >> >>> fine. >> >> >> the >> >> >> >>> problem is more likely management of the same. browsing the >> changes >> >> >> is >> >> >> >>> not >> >> >> >>> really convenient. ideally i'd like to see versions in the >> >> >> class-browser >> >> >> >>> and >> >> >> >>> in the debugger, where on error i could then take a look at >> older >> >> >> >>> versions for >> >> >> >>> comparison, and switch to them to see if maybe the last change >> was >> >> >> the >> >> >> >>> cause of >> >> >> >>> the error. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> greetings, martin. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There are versions already for methods. So the functionality is >> >> >> >> there. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I disagree however with you, I think that changes file was >> created >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> precise scenarios of an image crash/ lockdown. In that case you >> may >> >> >> want to >> >> >> >> go back through the code and dont remember which method was >> >> >> >> triggered >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> what else was defined and created. In the case going >> chronologically >> >> >> which >> >> >> >> is how the changes file is already organised is far more useful >> than >> >> >> going >> >> >> >> method and class based. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But I do agree it would be useful to extend the tools working >> with >> >> >> changes >> >> >> >> , but then none stop anyone from doing so and is not that hard to >> >> >> >> do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> http://forum.world.st/Stop-Thinking-in-Terms-of-Files-tp4865614p4865820.html >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> > >> >>

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Stop Thinking in Terms of Files

by Ben Coman

Fair enough ;p Now I'll get back doing something productive cheers -ben On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You could not ask the worst case person even if you wanted :D > > But here we go ... > > Will depend , let take my ChronosManager for example > > To modify the existing code of ChronosManager , is just text that gets > compiled to bytecode immediately on each accept, no need to be loaded from a > file, even though it gets added to the source and changes files. > > To add code to the image whether its the entire code of ChronosManager or > just a commit, it will load the code from st files, plus the extra filetree > metadata files for class definition, version control and method > categorization. I use Github but its a very similar story for those using > Smalltalkhub. > > To add code that contains data like an image, like I do with the GUI > resources , I use a large collection of PNG files which with the help of the > IconFactory will compile the binary data to a bytecode string and also pass > it as a form to be used immediately. I am thinking instead to replace the > iconfactory with direct access to the png files and creation of the form or > a need to exist basis. Lazy loading in short. > > In the future that I will need a common ground for all the images that use > ChronoManager to share data and live state , I will be using fuel files. > > For Ephestos (ChronosManager is part of the Ephestos project) that has to > deal with 3d data, the collection of files grow exponentially which I try to > keep outside the image because that data can easily reach several GBs and I > dont want the image to explode in my face. To give you an example one folder > I have with several blender files is around 2 gbs tops, each file being more > than 250 MB. Blend files by the way implement their own kind of "object > orientation" even though Blender is largely coded in C. > > So if you ask me how many files I have to pass to the opal compiler if all I > wanted is to stick just with the image my answer would be "a ton" but its a > moot a point since the image cant handle so much data anyway. But even in > the current scenario, its still a lot of files if you count the pngs and the > repository . > > I actually now try to remove my dependency on SmaCC because it makes the > load time very slow, apparently compilation of large projects in the image > is super slow and I will divert the parsing back to the python side which is > way faster and since its python syntax i am parsing, python is really good > at it anyway and helps me remove one unnecessary dependency. Though I have > to say I am very happy with SmaCC and its great to have it around. > > In the future I predict that I will have to keep more and more things into > files to make loading of Ephestos fast and also its execution because image > is not really optimized for what I want it to use it for. > > So in my case, its files all the way ! > > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:09 AM Ben Coman <btc(a)openinworld.com> wrote: >> >> Just one simple question... >> When you want Pharo to compile some code, which *file* do you pass to >> our Opal compiler? >> >> cheers -ben >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > The devil is in the details ;) >> > >> > It matters to me, I just came across the need to share data between >> > multiple >> > images. So I was pointed by the good people here to the Fuel library >> > that , >> > surprise surprise , it generates binary files that contain objects in >> > their >> > live state that helps you move and share code and data between images. >> > Works >> > well and I really like its design :) >> > >> > We are not talking here about something sophisticated, we are talking >> > here >> > super basic functionality. Images sharing data and code. What we use ? >> > Files. The image by itself has no functionality to even cover this super >> > basic scenario because as a format is made to be self contained. >> > >> > How you cant even care for such basic functionality ? Of course you will >> > at >> > some point. Its unavoidable. >> > >> > The nice thing about files is that they have one very big advantage over >> > the >> > image. That is, specialization. When an app find a specific file , just >> > by >> > looking at its extension it immediately knows the structure of the data >> > and >> > the code that it may contain. >> > >> > On other hand when you have an object system like the image is, such >> > specifications go outside the window meaning you have to deal with the >> > fact >> > and trust that those that made those images have adhered to specific >> > guidelines so you can make sure that your code wont run in front of some >> > very nasty surprises. >> > >> > But since the image itself allow you hack so deeply as the syntax of the >> > language , you can't be sure how the data and code will be presented. >> > Sure >> > they will objects, but the format does not really matter so much as the >> > structure itself. >> > >> > In those cases files win hands down because they tend to be far more >> > restricted on how they are structured. Not because there is anything >> > special >> > to these files, apart from the fact that their authors made sure to >> > follow >> > the specific structure to ensure compatibility with third party apps. >> > >> > So not only Files are not on the Stone Age but they have evolved the >> > level >> > of specification to a whole new level that have made the foundation of >> > our >> > every day lives. >> > >> > Sure you could probably replace files with a new way that is more >> > Smalltalk >> > friendly and still retain all the advantages of files and file system >> > but , >> > Smalltalk has not presented such solution to my knowledge. Hence we the >> > smalltalkers we will still keep relying heavily on files for our every >> > day >> > needs until such solution is presented to us. Also with the huge wealth >> > of >> > file formats it would be a pain in the ass to replace them with a >> > smalltalk >> > solution. >> > >> > In the mean time there are even more pressing matter that the image file >> > has >> > to attend to, which is far more stone age , to use your remark , than >> > files. >> > That is the ability to use full memory of the system and the ability to >> > deal >> > with large data without any large hits on performance. In short good >> > support >> > for 64 bit and big data. >> > >> > >> > "But these are implementation details...implementation of the base >> > system. >> > /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of >> > this >> > matters. >> > >> > As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with files >> > at >> > all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our >> > culture >> > is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in >> > them, >> > and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage >> > abstraction >> > as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the >> > Stone >> > Age!" >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 6:45 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> But these are implementation details...implementation of the base >> >> system. >> >> /From the perspective of a programmer writing an application/, none of >> >> this >> >> matters. >> >> >> >> As I said earlier, the only reason why Smalltalk has to deal with files >> >> at >> >> all is because we live in a file-based culture. And the reason our >> >> culture >> >> is so entrenched with files is because we are too heavily invested in >> >> them, >> >> and we aren't going to budge. *Files are about as low a storage >> >> abstraction >> >> as you can get*, and they pre-date even Unix. Yes, files belong in the >> >> Stone >> >> Age! >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> kilon.alios wrote >> >> > That's the thing you can't take the argument further without >> >> > diminishing >> >> > the value of you argument precisely for the fact that the vm is far >> >> > closer >> >> > related to the image than it is to 0s and 1s. That tight relation is >> >> > fundamental to the behavior and existence of the image. It defines >> >> > its >> >> > functionality, purpose and limitations. >> >> > >> >> > The image itself is a file and the fact that it can store live state >> >> > in >> >> > a >> >> > binary format does not make it unique or any less of a file. In my >> >> > case >> >> > I >> >> > use blender files, they store the entire live state of the blender >> >> > window >> >> > including images and even Python scripts. Similar examples are >> >> > countless >> >> > out there. >> >> > >> >> > So the answer to the question what makes the image file format unique >> >> > is >> >> > simply.... Nothing >> >> > What's the advantage of using the image format compared to other >> >> > files ? >> >> > None >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 at 15:14, Ben Coman < >> >> >> >> > btc@ >> >> >> >> > > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Dimitris Chloupis < >> >> >> >> > kilon.alios@ >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > "A Smalltalk Image is your entire system. The Image includes all >> >> >> > the >> >> >> tools >> >> >> > required to interact, customize and add functionality to your >> >> >> > system, >> >> >> so >> >> >> > Smalltalkâs IDE is a very Integrated Development Environment." >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thats not the case even for someone like me that has been working >> >> >> > with >> >> >> > smalltalk for only 2 years. The Image is not even the engine that >> >> >> drives >> >> >> > smalltalk . Thats the job of the VM that exists in a completely >> >> >> different >> >> >> > universe than smalltalk. It exists in the same universe than many >> >> >> > other >> >> >> > languages do exists and thats the C universe, the universe of the >> >> >> > OS. >> >> >> > Essentially what drives your system is not smalltalk is C. The >> >> >> diffirence is >> >> >> > that for a part of it that is high level enough, Slang is used, a >> >> >> Hybrid >> >> >> > language between C and Smalltalk that compiles to C. So while in >> >> >> > the >> >> >> image >> >> >> > everything is , well almost everything, an object all the way >> >> >> > down, >> >> >> > in >> >> >> the >> >> >> > VM everything is C all the way down. >> >> >> >> >> >> To take that argument further, the VM is not even the thing driving >> >> >> the image ;). Essentially what drives it are the 1's and 0's of >> >> >> machine code. Further, what drives that are the electrons flowing >> >> >> through the chip. I think its fair to say that we *code* in Pharo >> >> >> without files. Files relate to Pharo only to the same extent that a >> >> >> database like Oracle or Postgres can be said to use files. That is, >> >> >> when you do SQL queries, are you *thinking* in terms of files, even >> >> >> though files are used by the server to store the data? Its just a >> >> >> matter of where you draw the line of abstraction. >> >> >> >> >> >> cheers -ben >> >> >> >> >> >> > Ironically an image misses the most important tool to even >> >> >> > generate >> >> >> this >> >> >> C >> >> >> > code and thats the VMMaker that has to be installed separately. >> >> >> > And >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > course there are parts of the system that are coded in pure C, >> >> >> > like >> >> >> some >> >> >> > core functionalities of the VM and of course plugins and external >> >> >> libraries >> >> >> > that the image has to rely on make things happen. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Of course the image is still fairly powerful, you can change the >> >> >> syntax, >> >> >> > implement high level libraries, IDE tools and much more. But its >> >> >> > not >> >> >> the >> >> >> > core of the system just another essential part of it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:24 AM Dimitris Chloupis < >> >> >> >> > kilon.alios@ >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> well, i wouldn't need or even want it in memory, so on disk is >> >> >> >>> fine. >> >> >> the >> >> >> >>> problem is more likely management of the same. browsing the >> >> >> >>> changes >> >> >> is >> >> >> >>> not >> >> >> >>> really convenient. ideally i'd like to see versions in the >> >> >> class-browser >> >> >> >>> and >> >> >> >>> in the debugger, where on error i could then take a look at >> >> >> >>> older >> >> >> >>> versions for >> >> >> >>> comparison, and switch to them to see if maybe the last change >> >> >> >>> was >> >> >> the >> >> >> >>> cause of >> >> >> >>> the error. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> greetings, martin. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There are versions already for methods. So the functionality is >> >> >> >> there. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I disagree however with you, I think that changes file was >> >> >> >> created >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> precise scenarios of an image crash/ lockdown. In that case you >> >> >> >> may >> >> >> want to >> >> >> >> go back through the code and dont remember which method was >> >> >> >> triggered >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> what else was defined and created. In the case going >> >> >> >> chronologically >> >> >> which >> >> >> >> is how the changes file is already organised is far more useful >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> going >> >> >> >> method and class based. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But I do agree it would be useful to extend the tools working >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> changes >> >> >> >> , but then none stop anyone from doing so and is not that hard to >> >> >> >> do. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> View this message in context: >> >> >> >> http://forum.world.st/Stop-Thinking-in-Terms-of-Files-tp4865614p4865820.html >> >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> > >> >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [squeak-dev] Re: evolutions of squeakelib & crypto (Reed Solomon)

by Robert Withers

Hey Chris, I just tried this in my squeak image and it complains about not finding 'ConfigurationOfFuel' in a Monticello repository. Are there other pre-steps I need to take? Robert On 12/06/2015 02:03 PM, Chris Muller wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Robert Withers > <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com <mailto:robert.w.withers@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I just realized that the squeak version uses ReferenceStream while > the Pharo version uses Fuel, so the binary serializations are > different and they won't speak to each other. Any chance that Fuel > is ported to Squeak? > > > Installer new merge: #fuel > > >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

by Christophe Demarey

Hi, By the way, is it possible to have exact match now? At least, I expect to have expect match on the top of the result list. A simple use case, open Spotter search number dive into implementors category The exact matches are lost in the middle of hundreds of other selectors. This way, it is very difficult to find what you need. It is also why I always need to open a playground to be able to search all implementors of a selector. It is not do-able with spotter without an exact match. That said, I have to add that I really enjoy spotter and other GT tools :) Christophe Le 8 dÃ©c. 2015 Ã 01:56, Juraj Kubelka a Ã©crit : > >> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: >> >> On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> #<anything> is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc. >> >> Oh... right. I've been using this for long time, my brain just didn't >> connect the dots. >> >> In either case, once you dive in the category filter is no longer >> applicable. >> So normally I would do "#i selector", then dive in, and then filter it. >> >>> Then I have learnt that people are not aware of [...] any other kind of wild-characters. >> >> People don't know what wild-chars are? I would understand that someone >> might be uncomfortable with regexps, because there are many variations, but wildcharsâ¦ > > Well, some people asks for regular expressions, some people asks for wild-characters, some people prefers other techniques. > In most cases people are satisfied with substring solution as it is right now. In some special cases people thinks about more advance solution. > I believe that we should sort results according to relevance, e.g., if I write open, then selectors called open should be first, then likely openOn:, openWithSpec:, openVeryLongExplanation:, etc. > > Cheers, > Juraj > >> >>> >>>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> are there some wildcards in GTSpotter matching? >>>> >>>> Currently it searches anywhere in the (method) name, which makes it hard >>>> for shorter names, because it will match a lot of junk. >>>> >>>> I've also discovered (by accident), that I can use '>>#selector' to >>>> anchor the start of the selection. ('#selector' for some reason doesn't >>>> work). >>>> But I would like to also search by a simple ? (any character), * (any >>>> characters) wildcard. Is that possible? >>>> >>>> Additionally constraining it from the end would be also nice. >>>> For example I want to look through #default methods, however 90% of the >>>> matches will be junk, so I would like to write '#default$' and it will >>>> not match '#defaultIcon', etc. >>>> >>>> Is this possible? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -- >>>> Peter >>>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Peter >> > >

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] Roassal Performance Issues when applying layout

by Alexandre Bergel

Hi Pablo, This is great that you contact the mailing list. You have apparently found a bug in the way composite shapes are implemented. I have fixed the problem by introducing a new class RTOptimizedForceBaseLayout. Please, update Roassal and try it. It should be super fast. Else, feel free to come to my office this Wednesday at 9:00 am :-) Cheers, Alexandre > On Dec 7, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Pablo Polanco <paropoga(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, we are Pablo Polanco and Jorge Ampuero and we are Computer Science students at Universidad de Chile. > > We are currently taking a course on Robotics Software Engineering dictated by Johan Fabry. > > We want to visualize a simple directed graph and we are experiencing performance issues when layouting our visualization in Roassal. > > We provide the report from the Time Profiler when we visualize 13 elements and 38 edges: http://pastebin.com/zsh8YFPx > > Should it take so much time? How could we improve it? Is there another more appropriate layout? > > Thanks in advance :) > > <Screenshot from 2015-12-07 17:23:05.png> > â -- _,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;: Alexandre Bergel http://www.bergel.eu ^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.

Dec. 8, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] About GTSpotter matching

by Juraj Kubelka

> 7. 12. 2015 v 11:59, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com>: > > On 12/07, Juraj Kubelka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> #<anything> is a category filter. Try #class, #instance, etc. > > Oh... right. I've been using this for long time, my brain just didn't > connect the dots. > > In either case, once you dive in the category filter is no longer > applicable. > So normally I would do "#i selector", then dive in, and then filter it. > >> Then I have learnt that people are not aware of [...] any other kind of wild-characters. > > People don't know what wild-chars are? I would understand that someone > might be uncomfortable with regexps, because there are many variations, but wildcharsâ¦ Well, some people asks for regular expressions, some people asks for wild-characters, some people prefers other techniques. In most cases people are satisfied with substring solution as it is right now. In some special cases people thinks about more advance solution. I believe that we should sort results according to relevance, e.g., if I write open, then selectors called open should be first, then likely openOn:, openWithSpec:, openVeryLongExplanation:, etc. Cheers, Juraj > >> >>> On Dec 5, 2015, at 20:40, Peter Uhnak <i.uhnak(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> are there some wildcards in GTSpotter matching? >>> >>> Currently it searches anywhere in the (method) name, which makes it hard >>> for shorter names, because it will match a lot of junk. >>> >>> I've also discovered (by accident), that I can use '>>#selector' to >>> anchor the start of the selection. ('#selector' for some reason doesn't >>> work). >>> But I would like to also search by a simple ? (any character), * (any >>> characters) wildcard. Is that possible? >>> >>> Additionally constraining it from the end would be also nice. >>> For example I want to look through #default methods, however 90% of the >>> matches will be junk, so I would like to write '#default$' and it will >>> not match '#defaultIcon', etc. >>> >>> Is this possible? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- >>> Peter >>> >> >> > > -- > Peter >

Dec. 8, 2015

← Newer
1
...
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
...
66
Older →

Jump to page: