February 2020 - Pharo-users

Re: [Pharo-users] Dictionary removeKey: very low

by LABORDE Pierre

Thanks Peter. Here some informations about execution time : dic := Dictionary new: 10000. Time microsecondsToRun:[ 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i | dic at: i put: i printString. ]. ]. "6000Âµs" Time microsecondsToRun:[ 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i | dic removeKey: i. ]. ]. "2683000Âµs, up to 447x" Regarding your comment, I have wrote a too simple example. Here a new test with a better representation of my need and datas (randomization) : dic := Dictionary new: 10000. pool := SortedCollection new: 10000. random := Random new. pool sort:[ :a :b | random next < 0.5 ]. 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i | pool add: i ]. Time microsecondsToRun:[ pool do:[ :i | dic at: i put: i printString. ]. ]. "6000Âµs => same time, good point" Time microsecondsToRun:[ pool do:[ :i | dic removeKey: i. ]. ]. "17000Âµs, up to 2,8x => huge changes !" Itâs appear more reasonable ! I need to test it with real datas, to be continued. Thanks for all. Pierre De : Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] De la part de PBKResearch EnvoyÃ© : lundi 3 fÃ©vrier 2020 12:25 Ã : 'Any question about pharo is welcome' Objet : Re: [Pharo-users] Dictionary removeKey: very low Pierre Itâs all to do with rehashing. A dictionary is stored as an Array of Association. After a key and its corresponding association is removed, the remaining entries are rehashed from the removal point to the end of the array. By doing the removals in natural order, you rehash the whole of the remaining array after each removal. Try doing the removals in reverse order; on my machine it reduces the time from 6 seconds to 6 milliseconds. HTH Peter Kenny From: Pharo-users <pharo-users-bounces(a)lists.pharo.org> On Behalf Of LABORDE Pierre Sent: 03 February 2020 10:18 To: pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org Subject: [Pharo-users] Dictionary removeKey: very low Hi all, I have a problem with Dictionaries : dic := Dictionary new: 10000. 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i | dic at: i put: i printString. ]. 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i | dic removeKey: i. ] Removing each keys is very slooow, time execution difference between add and remove is crazy. Any idea for fix that ? Can I use another Dictionary implementation or settings ? Thanks. Pierre

Feb. 7, 2020

R: About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by Lorenzo

Bravo!!!!! Lorenzo Da: Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] Per conto di phil(a)highoctane.be Inviato: giovedÃ¬ 6 febbraio 2020 19:41 A: Any question about pharo is welcome <pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org> Oggetto: Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk" This is tiring. I like reading those blog posts. And Pharo is not exactly Smalltalk, so what? Syntax close enough, principles close enough. What is there to win in arguing about this point? I have been not using Pharo for a while commercially, because, well, Pharo is a hard sell to companies. Hence doing Scala, Java, and other "less productive" environments. But with Eclipse Collections, Java 8 feels quite close when coupled with something like IntelliJ Ultimate. >From where I stand this looks like a battle in kindergarten. Yawn. Phil á§ On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com <mailto:horrido.hobbies@gmail.com> > wrote: > The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be. Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk (which eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) are. Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk. So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should cement the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang). Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes: 1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception. 2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of messages. 3. The live coding environment. 4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability. I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining qualities. Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family. And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can be a family. However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 7, 2020

[FOSDEM] Grafoscopio

by Santiago Bragagnolo

Fosdem organization uploaded the videos on grafoscopio :). Maybe it would be nice to spread it through our medias https://video.fosdem.org/2020/AW1.126/open_research_pocket_infrastructures.… https://video.fosdem.org/2020/AW1.126/open_research_pocket_infrastructures.… Santiago

Feb. 7, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by Sean P. DeNigris

> pharo is not smalltalk > TedVanGaalen wrote >> Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. An ancient parable goes... > A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had > been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and > form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, > of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it > they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed > on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one > whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another > person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like a > tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the > elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. > The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, smooth > and like a spear. And from its Wikipedia article: > In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to > "see" the full elephant. TL;DR Two parts of the same elephant: 1. Pharo is Smalltalk (in the sense that St-72, 76, and 80 are) 2. Pharo is not Smalltalk (in the sense that most non-Smalltalkers think that "Smalltalk" = St-80, so they would be mislead and unnecessary turned off by #1) The *marketing* decision's logic is something like the following: Given that both of these soundbites are equally (un)true, which one is more likely to bring people to Pharo? |-----------------|-------------Audience--------------------| |--Sound Byte--|--Familiar w ST--|------Unfamiliar------| ____________________________________________| |--Pharo = ST---|-----N/A*-------| Ew! Last century!----| |-Pharo ~= ST--|-----N/A*-------| Hmm, interesting...--| * Have already made up their mind and will not likely be convinced by a soundbite anyway While one can certainly understand disagreeing with the possible effectiveness of the strategy, these threads usually IMHO have the feel of a holy war from the camp touching the "Pharo = ST" part of the elephant. In the unlikely event that anyone is still reading this, I'll paste my longer explanation from a similar 2015 thread [1] Sean P. DeNigris wrote > The best way to understand the rationale for Pharo's marketing decision is > to read one of the many long threads about it on the Pharo lists. I doubt > rehashing it will provide new value. > > The issue boils down to the fact that the term Smalltalk has been > overloaded. The original meaning was prototype Dynabook software that was > used to bootstrap its replacement every 4 years. This true definition, by > design, leaves plenty of room for innovation. Unfortunately, when > Smalltalk-80 was released to the world, that became what people mean when > they use the word Smalltalk. Obviously, people already familiar with > Smalltalk are going to look at Pharo and go, "oh look, it's Smalltalk"*. > But that is not the target market. The audience for the Smalltalk-inspired > campaign is the other 99% of programmers who would never get past: > "Smalltalk = 1980 = dead = not worth checking out". > > Anyway, I'd rather get back to hacking than waste more time in these IMHO > mostly-pointless debates. In fact, I disagree that unpopularity is a > problem at all. I would say that our biggest advantage is not being > popular. I'll take a small community of true-believers over a mob of trend > followers any day. > > * Although they'd probably base that opinion on the syntax, which is the > least important part of Smalltalk (the live environment being first, and > libraries second). In fact, if Ruby had a live, dynamic, > turtles-all-the-way-down environment, with a Morphic-like uniform, live > interface, and Smalltalk-like tools, I probably wouldn't have gravitated > to Smalltalk 1. Why Aren't People Using Smalltalk? http://forum.world.st/Why-Aren-t-People-Using-Smalltalk-tp4843473p4848195.h… ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 7, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

> You can evangelize what you want but I would prefer if you have to evangelize, keep it to smalltalk and do not refer to pharo, not even with screenshots. Whoa! You want me to remove all references to Pharo in my smalltalk.tech.blog??? That would eliminate most of the current blog posts. It would hollow out the Resources page. And like I intimated before, it would utterly destroy my JRMPC competition. There would be no point in evangelizing Smalltalk anymore. Your position is completely unreasonable. I'll go further and say it's insane. I hope most Pharoers are not so extreme. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 6, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by phil＠highoctane.be

This is tiring. I like reading those blog posts. And Pharo is not exactly Smalltalk, so what? Syntax close enough, principles close enough. What is there to win in arguing about this point? I have been not using Pharo for a while commercially, because, well, Pharo is a hard sell to companies. Hence doing Scala, Java, and other "less productive" environments. But with Eclipse Collections, Java 8 feels quite close when coupled with something like IntelliJ Ultimate. >From where I stand this looks like a battle in kindergarten. Yawn. Phil á§ On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 4:52 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of > other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be. > > Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk > (which > eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with > unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) > are. > > Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less > and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk. > > So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise > Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should > cement > the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a > modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang). > > Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains > Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo > evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes: > > 1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception. > > 2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of > messages. > > 3. The live coding environment. > > 4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability. > > I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining > qualities. > Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family. > > And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because > Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can > be > a family. > > However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html > >

Feb. 6, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

> The whole reason Pharo exists is to break free from the constraints of other people's ideas of what Smalltalk is and should remain to be. Pharo is no more constrained by Smalltalk's legacy than GNU Smalltalk (which eschews the traditional IDE) and Hoot Smalltalk (a JVM-based Smalltalk with unique enhancements) and Dolphin Smalltalk (which dares to be Windows-only) are. Most Smalltalks have their own special enhancements thus making them less and less compatible with "standard" Smalltalk. So I see no reason to worry about Pharo being shackled. I always advertise Pharo as "a modern variant of Smalltalk created in 2008" which should cement the idea that Pharo is relevant today. I always compare Pharo to Clojure (a modern variant of LISP) and Elixir (a modern variant of Erlang). Pharo is free to make great strides forward. As long as its "core" remains Smalltalk, Pharo will always be a Smalltalk. No matter how much Pharo evolves, it will never give up its core, which includes: 1. Alan Kay's pure and simple object-oriented conception. 2. The core syntax which is message-based and consists of three types of messages. 3. The live coding environment. 4. Reflectivity and a powerful metaprogramming capability. I can't imagine a future where Pharo wouldn't have these defining qualities. Therefore, Pharo belongs in the Smalltalk family. And, btw, Sven, you are absolutely correct: Pharo is not Smalltalk. Because Smalltalk is not one language but a family of languages. No one thing can be a family. However, Pharo is a Smalltalk. And this is undeniable. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 6, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by Norbert Hartl

> Am 06.02.2020 um 14:45 schrieb horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com>: > > As I suggested earlier, my evangelism has been rather polarizing. There are a > lot of people like yourself who don't appreciate my efforts. There a lot of > people who do. > > For example, when I attended the FAST conference in Salta, many people > (Leandro Caniglia, Carlos Ferro, etc.) expressed their appreciation. Another > example, members of TSUG (Bob Nemec, Norman Branitsky, Dave Mason, etc.) > appreciate my efforts. I wonder, if I attended an ESUG conference, might I > find supporters, as well? > > At Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Quora, Medium, etc., there are many fans of > my evangelism. Amazingly, there are supporters on this forum, too! > > So how much weight should I give to your opinion? Should I now stop on your > say so? Make a convincing case and I shall drop everything. I shall > terminate JRMPC immediately and return all the money to LabWare (thereby > disappointing over 120 participating students). I shall delete > smalltalk.tech.blog <https://smalltalk.tech.blog/ <https://smalltalk.tech.blog/>> . I shall remove all my > existing blogs and videos about Smalltalk from Medium and YouTube. Perhaps > this will reverse the damage. > > I await your caseâ¦ > Sorry, I was not clear in the last mail. I can't and I won't tell you what you should do or not. You can evangelize what you want but I would prefer if you have to evangelize, keep it to smalltalk and do not refer to pharo, not even with screenshots. And it would be nice if you wouldn't misuse this community for your needs. You might have fans and everyone is allowed to have an opinion. But none of the people you mentioned I identify as member of this community. So it doesn't matter much to me. The weight of my opinion? That I don't know. But as a member of the pharo board it has enough weight to not be neglected. And with this weight I want to tell you that you are one of the major annoyances in this community. I hope it is more clear this time. regards, Norbert > > NorbertHartl wrote >>> Am 05.02.2020 um 20:41 schrieb horrido < > >> horrido.hobbies@ > >> >: >>> >>>> It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it >>> >>> Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming >>> language >>> evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it >>> for >>> the love of the language. >>> >>> I hear what you're saying, and I understand fully. I just don't agree >>> with >>> it entirely. >> >> I doubt that. >>> >>> I think it's short-sighted. Smalltalk has long been criticized for being >>> a >>> secluded island, and now you want to do the same for Pharo? Even as I try >>> to >>> build bridges to the island? >> >> Now, you just don't understand. We are being criticized for leaving the >> island. From where you stand it looks that Smalltalk would still exist and >> we are making an island in the sea of nothing. >>> >>> You could ban everybody from this forum who aren't focussed 100% on Pharo >>> and you'd have a much smaller community. You could ban everybody who is a >>> Smalltalker. The result is a much more tightly focussed forum, clean and >>> free from distractions. Fine. But what is the long-term cost? >>> >> You don't understand. We don't usually ban people but we should. And I >> don't care about the size of the community because the part of the >> community that does not focus on pharo is useless to us. Is that so hard >> to get? >> >>> Smalltalk evangelism would come to an end. Why? Because frankly nobody is >>> interested in the other Smalltalks. Pharo is where all the action is. >>> >> Yes, and it is for a reason. It is because we did a hard and good job the >> last 12 years. You just need to understand that this Smalltalk thing does >> not exist if it ever has. >> >>> And without Smalltalk evangelism, I don't see a path for Pharo becoming >>> more >>> than a niche language. Pharo doesn't show up an *any* language popularity >>> index. At least Clojure, Erlang/Elixir, and Haskell are in the top 30 in >>> several places. >>> >> And what kind of metric is that? And why the hell you think that Smalltalk >> evangelising can change that? I cannot imagine a single reason that makes >> that assumption hold. >> >>> At Indeed, there are 18 job postings in the United States that mention >>> Smalltalk, and none for Pharo. Even Clojure has 404, Erlang has 274, and >>> Haskell has 519, pathetic though these numbers are. >>> >> We are working on it. And if we do not succeed so be it. The one thing I'm >> sure is that you are not helping. >> >>> Yes, I also understand that there are many Pharoers who don't care about >>> remaining niche. That's a tragedy. >>> >> You really have to understand that IT changed since you've been active. >> Software is omnipresent today meaning it enters all areas of live. And >> most of these areas you can call a niche. Being mainstream does not make >> things better! >> >>> I would rather not have wasted the last five years of my life. >>> >> I'm sorry for you but you did. And in my opinion you should stop that >> because you do more harm than good. I know this just confirms you in >> ongoing but so be it. >> >> Norbert >> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >>> > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html <http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html>

Feb. 6, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by TedVanGaalen

Dear Esteban, To make a long thread short: For users, your attitude/opinion implies the following facts: -if adhering to Pharo, then all the things one creates become increasingly incompatible with Smalltalk, because, in effect, you state that Pharo abandons/deviates from Smalltalk as a standard. So: -If a user wants to be productive: Why then should they write applications in a Pharo if one looses the compatibility with the rest of the Smalltalk world? (this is actually the REAL subject of this thread, not whether or not "dissonant" opinions causes list "pollution" imho) Btw, I am not exactly an "evangelist" with my ca. 2 or 3 "contributions" to this forum per year, so I am not exactly flooding the list, am I? (btw, most of my reactions to this list were about a 5 year old freeze-on-mac-at-full-screen-bug-since-Pharo-5.0 which still hasn't been repaired (VM problem i think)) However, I think this discussion is very important on a user level. which highly influences whether or not to use Pharo as a real tool for application development in a production environment or to regard it as some sort of academic hobby, standing on its own? But, don't worry, If you'd like to live on an island, you're free to do so. Also of course you are free to completely ignore and not having some initiative to at least try to standardize Smalltalk, which would benefit all of us! (user perspective) The latter btw goes for all Smalltalk incarnations alike, not only Pharo. Perfect example how to more or less doom a fantastic programming language/environment nowhere nothing found alike, by not talking, working together and reaching a consensus. (no matter how hard this can be at times, the smaller the islands become) Currently I won't recommend Pharo any further to new Smalltalk users because it puts them, without most of them realizing it, on an island with no boats to get them back to the real world. Never mind, just ignore me, as I am just a mere speck in the IT/Smalltalk world and of little significance I will now forget this whole thing, take a sunny walk along the Dordogne here, which, if it could talk, undoubtedly will confirm my question: "Pardon me, Dordogne, for asking: Are you a river? " with: "Huh? Yes of course I am, and indeed a beautiful one too, if I may say so! can't you see that?" The river is a lot wiser that me: it's only talk is the serene sound of eternal water flowing by and the wind playing with the leaves of trees surrounding it. I could learn a thing or two from that.. so can you.. Don't worry I will not react further on this. eat your own cake, I don't mind. Regards TedvG. -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 6, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] About "it's not pharo but smalltalk"

by horrido

As I suggested earlier, my evangelism has been rather polarizing. There are a lot of people like yourself who don't appreciate my efforts. There a lot of people who do. For example, when I attended the FAST conference in Salta, many people (Leandro Caniglia, Carlos Ferro, etc.) expressed their appreciation. Another example, members of TSUG (Bob Nemec, Norman Branitsky, Dave Mason, etc.) appreciate my efforts. I wonder, if I attended an ESUG conference, might I find supporters, as well? At Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Quora, Medium, etc., there are many fans of my evangelism. Amazingly, there are supporters on this forum, too! So how much weight should I give to your opinion? Should I now stop on your say so? Make a convincing case and I shall drop everything. I shall terminate JRMPC immediately and return all the money to LabWare (thereby disappointing over 120 participating students). I shall delete smalltalk.tech.blog <https://smalltalk.tech.blog/> . I shall remove all my existing blogs and videos about Smalltalk from Medium and YouTube. Perhaps this will reverse the damage. I await your case... NorbertHartl wrote >> Am 05.02.2020 um 20:41 schrieb horrido < > horrido.hobbies@ > >: >> >>> It is your initiative, you should know, nobody asked you to do it >> >> Well, that's a peculiar attitude. There are many, many programming >> language >> evangelists and I don't think anybody "asked" them to do it. They do it >> for >> the love of the language. >> >> I hear what you're saying, and I understand fully. I just don't agree >> with >> it entirely. > > I doubt that. >> >> I think it's short-sighted. Smalltalk has long been criticized for being >> a >> secluded island, and now you want to do the same for Pharo? Even as I try >> to >> build bridges to the island? > > Now, you just don't understand. We are being criticized for leaving the > island. From where you stand it looks that Smalltalk would still exist and > we are making an island in the sea of nothing. >> >> You could ban everybody from this forum who aren't focussed 100% on Pharo >> and you'd have a much smaller community. You could ban everybody who is a >> Smalltalker. The result is a much more tightly focussed forum, clean and >> free from distractions. Fine. But what is the long-term cost? >> > You don't understand. We don't usually ban people but we should. And I > don't care about the size of the community because the part of the > community that does not focus on pharo is useless to us. Is that so hard > to get? > >> Smalltalk evangelism would come to an end. Why? Because frankly nobody is >> interested in the other Smalltalks. Pharo is where all the action is. >> > Yes, and it is for a reason. It is because we did a hard and good job the > last 12 years. You just need to understand that this Smalltalk thing does > not exist if it ever has. > >> And without Smalltalk evangelism, I don't see a path for Pharo becoming >> more >> than a niche language. Pharo doesn't show up an *any* language popularity >> index. At least Clojure, Erlang/Elixir, and Haskell are in the top 30 in >> several places. >> > And what kind of metric is that? And why the hell you think that Smalltalk > evangelising can change that? I cannot imagine a single reason that makes > that assumption hold. > >> At Indeed, there are 18 job postings in the United States that mention >> Smalltalk, and none for Pharo. Even Clojure has 404, Erlang has 274, and >> Haskell has 519, pathetic though these numbers are. >> > We are working on it. And if we do not succeed so be it. The one thing I'm > sure is that you are not helping. > >> Yes, I also understand that there are many Pharoers who don't care about >> remaining niche. That's a tragedy. >> > You really have to understand that IT changed since you've been active. > Software is omnipresent today meaning it enters all areas of live. And > most of these areas you can call a niche. Being mainstream does not make > things better! > >> I would rather not have wasted the last five years of my life. >> > I'm sorry for you but you did. And in my opinion you should stop that > because you do more harm than good. I know this just confirms you in > ongoing but so be it. > > Norbert > >> >> >> -- >> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html >> -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 6, 2020