April 2015 - Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Norbert Hartl

Stef, where is "the tool"? Norbert > Am 23.04.2015 um 08:01 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > > Two things: > > One: > We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The tool works well is fast. > if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are bad dependencies in his > code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). > No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this instead of making sure that > when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package is bound with this one". > This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I would say) maintain it. > > Two: > Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add more. > Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. > > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. > > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. > > Stef > > Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>>> this is so good. >>>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >>> No. People should start to think modular. >>> No more external tools loaded by default. >>> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the configurationBrowser. >>> >>> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show to people >>> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >>> >> But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. >> >> We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with lots >> care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and all the >> details there where not fixed and all work was done double? >> >> If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, we will have >> that again. >> >> I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to be using should >> be there without needing an additional step. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Norbert Hartl

Can someone explain to me what is the difference between "loading a tool" and "put something in the image" ? I thought we all agree that the atomic image should shrink as far as it can and everything should be loaded on top. If that is the case we can also agree that we don't want to release the atomic image because it isn't useful. So we need to have a discussion about what is supposed to be _in the release image_ anyway meaning what are the tools in the release configuration that get loaded by the CI to produce a releasable image. Taken that into account and the different preferences of people we could have developer released images. It means that one person takes the responsibility of managing a configuration that loads his preferred tools and setup. This can be published on a dedicated page of pharo.org <http://pharo.org/>. In the best case there would appear images for web, visualization, database stuff, science stuff etc. So everyone can express what is pharo for him/her. Norbert > Am 23.04.2015 um 09:04 schrieb stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr>: > > > > Le 23/4/15 09:05, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> I do not understand how âhaving a modular tool in the image â (that does not add dependencies to anything) >> makes the system less modular. > Then why the dependency Browser was not integrated? Why roassal for drawing dependencies > and other aspects of the system? Because dependency browser as well as roassal are really useful, > well packaged, What about pillar? Because it would be cool to have beautiful class comments in the future. The point is how and in which process. > In addition what are the criteria? Feelings or criteria? Oh this tool is cool but this one less cool. > Strange for scientific people no? > I think that we should have a building process that load tools. > We will not be able to put everything in the image: > Did you look at the dependencies between RB, nautilus, history, EyeInspector? > I did because it was getting the mess. My energy is cheap and infinite so I can spend 8 hours > fixing configurations that nobody use or look at. But you see this period is ***over***. > >>> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. >>> >>> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication >>> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional >>> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>> >> You always directly go and argue by âI am now sadâ purely emotional level. >> This is not good. > Read what you want to read. But my energy in neither cheap nor infinite anymore. > This is not a feeling but just a mere fact. > >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Yuriy Tymchuk

I totally agree with Stef that we should be able to do a rock solid setup of what tools we want to use in our everyday image. But on the other hand we have to design what Pharo is. Because we can even go Ruby style and say that debugger is not a part of the main system, but I see that our strength is to provide people with ultimate tools for development (although we cannot put everything inside). And I think that dependency browser is important and I will continue to convince people that quality of code is important and that we should use quality tools in our daily work. Maybe now QualityAssistant is not mature enough, but at some point it will be :). Cheers. Uko P.S. at the moment we are loosing competition to JetBrains tools because they give you live feedback about code critics. > On 23 Apr 2015, at 09:04, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 23/4/15 09:05, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> I do not understand how âhaving a modular tool in the image â (that does not add dependencies to anything) >> makes the system less modular. > Then why the dependency Browser was not integrated? Why roassal for drawing dependencies > and other aspects of the system? Because dependency browser as well as roassal are really useful, > well packaged, What about pillar? Because it would be cool to have beautiful class comments in the future. The point is how and in which process. > In addition what are the criteria? Feelings or criteria? Oh this tool is cool but this one less cool. > Strange for scientific people no? > I think that we should have a building process that load tools. > We will not be able to put everything in the image: > Did you look at the dependencies between RB, nautilus, history, EyeInspector? > I did because it was getting the mess. My energy is cheap and infinite so I can spend 8 hours > fixing configurations that nobody use or look at. But you see this period is ***over***. > >>> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. >>> >>> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication >>> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional >>> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >>> >> You always directly go and argue by âI am now sadâ purely emotional level. >> This is not good. > Read what you want to read. But my energy in neither cheap nor infinite anymore. > This is not a feeling but just a mere fact. > >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by stepharo

Le 23/4/15 09:05, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : > I do not understand how âhaving a modular tool in the image â (that does not add dependencies to anything) > makes the system less modular. Then why the dependency Browser was not integrated? Why roassal for drawing dependencies and other aspects of the system? Because dependency browser as well as roassal are really useful, well packaged, What about pillar? Because it would be cool to have beautiful class comments in the future. The point is how and in which process. In addition what are the criteria? Feelings or criteria? Oh this tool is cool but this one less cool. Strange for scientific people no? I think that we should have a building process that load tools. We will not be able to put everything in the image: Did you look at the dependencies between RB, nautilus, history, EyeInspector? I did because it was getting the mess. My energy is cheap and infinite so I can spend 8 hours fixing configurations that nobody use or look at. But you see this period is ***over***. >> So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. >> >> But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication >> that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional >> I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. >> > You always directly go and argue by âI am now sadâ purely emotional level. > This is not good. Read what you want to read. But my energy in neither cheap nor infinite anymore. This is not a feeling but just a mere fact. > > > Marcus > > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] tinychat

by stepharo

great! Stef Le 21/4/15 17:02, Sean P. DeNigris a Ã©crit : > stepharo wrote >> Yes it is in FunWithPharo on github and thanks for the editing pass. > No problem. I just committed the fixes. > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/tinychat-tp4820781p4820832.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Marcus Denker

I do not understand how âhaving a modular tool in the image â (that does not add dependencies to anything) makes the system less modular. Especially if the price we pay for that is a system where good tools are available, but nobody uses them. > > > So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. > > But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication > that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional > I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. > You always directly go and argue by âI am now sadâ purely emotional level. This is not good. Marcus

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by stepharo

Two things: One: We paid a guy to work on a tool to help us identifying dependencies, The tool works well is fast. if this tool would be in the image, everybody could check that there are bad dependencies in his code (and there are many around in nearly anybody's code). No we prefer that me, pavel, and guille run it and fight with this instead of making sure that when you commit we get some feedback like: "oh strange that this package is bound with this one". This tool breaks when we do change in the image and I nicely (stupidly I would say) maintain it. Two: Our process is not great to manage external packages and we will add more. Sure it sounds like the right things to do, especially now. So to me it simply means that we are not serious and convinced about modularity. But this is great, I'm reconsidering what I will do in Pharo so you give me good indication that I should not continue the way I was thinking. And no need to think that I'm emotional I'm not. I'm thinking about why hell I'm doing all this. Stef Le 22/4/15 21:27, Marcus Denker a Ã©crit : >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >>> this is so good. >>> what about integrate it to Pharo? >> No. People should start to think modular. >> No more external tools loaded by default. >> Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the configurationBrowser. >> >> Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show to people >> when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. >> > But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. > > We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with lots > care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and all the > details there where not fixed and all work was done double? > > If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, we will have > that again. > > I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to be using should > be there without needing an additional step. > > Marcus > > > >

April 23, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Marcus Denker

> On 22 Apr 2015, at 20:22, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : >> this is so good. >> what about integrate it to Pharo? > No. People should start to think modular. > No more external tools loaded by default. > Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the configurationBrowser. > > Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show to people > when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. > But the Pharo that we download should be the Pharo we use. We tried the other back in Pharo1.0: Do you remember how we fixed with lots care all details, but then, everyone was using a different image, and all the details there where not fixed and all work was done double? If we do not make the Pharo that is downloaded to be that was is used, we will have that again. I donât want everything in the image, but what everyone is supposed to be using should be there without needing an additional step. Marcus

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [Pharo-dev] QualityAssistant v0.4

by stepharo

Le 22/4/15 13:23, Esteban Lorenzano a Ã©crit : > this is so good. > what about integrate it to Pharo? No. People should start to think modular. No more external tools loaded by default. Better invest in "add a startup preference" functionality in the configurationBrowser. Why we do not integrate the excellent tool of baptiste that would show to people when they are creating package mess? Because of the same reason. Stef > > cheers, > Esteban > >> On 22 Apr 2015, at 08:58, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com >> <mailto:yuriy.tymchuk@me.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone! >> >> Probably most of you know, that I am developing a tool called >> QualityAssistant, which displays current critics about your code in >> SystemBrowser, Inspector and Spotter. >> >> Iâm happy to tell you that there is a new release v0.4 which does not >> require you to do any previous setup! Just load it from configuration >> browser (pharo 4 & 5) and it will start giving you feedback. More >> details can be found here: >> https://github.com/Uko/QualityAssistant#quality-assistant-beta-. If >> you are upgrading from older version, it is recommended to load >> QualityAssistant into a fresh image, because multiple announcement >> and process changes may cause exceptions in old objects. >> >> Even if you are an experienced programmer you can find >> QualityAssistant useful for instantly spotting typos or making sure >> that you didnât forget some details about your code. >> >> Please give me a feedback about your experience, as I want to make it >> even more useful. Either write me an email, or open an entry at: >> https://github.com/Uko/QualityAssistant/issues >> >> Have a nice week! >> Uko >> >> <critics.jpg> >

April 22, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] QualityAssistant v0.4

by Johan Fabry

Some weird behavior in quality assistant. Have a look at this method: duplicateVar: aVarName self show: 'Var: ', aVarName, ' redefinition ignored'. This raises the issue: âUse cascaded nextPutAll:âs instead of #, in nextPutAll:â It also pops up the automatic rewrite icon, so I clicked on it to see how it would transform the code. Result: duplicateVar: aVarName self show: 'Var: ' , aVarName; show: ' redefinition ignored' Needless to say, thatâs not a behavior preserving transformation. > On Apr 22, 2015, at 03:58, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk(a)me.com> wrote: > > Please give me a feedback about your experience, as I want to make it even more useful. Either write me an email, or open an entry at: https://github.com/Uko/QualityAssistant/issues <https://github.com/Uko/QualityAssistant/issues> ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

April 22, 2015