- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] looking for a tutorial on sounds in Pharo

by phil＠highoctane.be

https://github.com/xmessner/PharoSoundTutorial/blob/master/Sound_en.pier On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Grigory Hatsevich <g.hatsevich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! I'm looking for a tutorial about sound generation in Pharo. I've found > "PharoSoundTutorial" (https://github.com/xmessner/PharoSoundTutorial) but > it is in French. Is there an English version of this tutorial or some > other English text about sounds in Pharo? > > >

Oct. 16, 2016

looking for a tutorial on sounds in Pharo

by Grigory Hatsevich

Hi! I'm looking for a tutorial about sound generation in Pharo. I've found "PharoSoundTutorial" (https://github.com/xmessner/PharoSoundTutorial) but it is in French. Is there an English version of this tutorial or some other English text about sounds in Pharo?

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by CodeDmitry

"Messages are very hard to implement if not impossible because they required that calls don't exist or be disabled, otherwise the existence of message is pointless. And since no language I am aware of allow you to disable calls and replace them with messages , what you trying to do is pointless ." Can you explain in more detail what you mean by this? I am not sure how other languages cannot do this. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by Dimitris Chloupis

Still you don't understand how Ruby syntax works. Every method call every function you see is basically a masquerade message sent. Those calls are just syntactic sugar, they don't exist, they are there to make people to feel more comfortable giving them the illusion that is a call because it looks like a call, but is all message sents. So there is no need to do what you doing . Ruby does not just implement message scents, it's basically Smalltalk pretending to be something else. So most of Smalltalk syntax is there. For me it's is the ONLY language that can claim it's Smalltalk language inspired. Messages are very hard to implement if not impossible because they required that calls don't exist or be disabled, otherwise the existence of message is pointless. And since no language I am aware of allow you to disable calls and replace them with messages , what you trying to do is pointless . Of course to be devil's advocate here Smalltalk in vast majority uses messages as calls so there existence is kinda pointless too, risking to be burn in fire by my fellow Smalltalkers , I have only seen the power of message to be taken advantage of in the case of messageNotUnderstood be linked to doesNotUnderstand method. In every other case I have encountered the message always has the same name as the method, which defeats the purpose of the message in the first place. This is also the default behavior of the IDE. On Sun, 16 Oct 2016 at 12:54, CodeDmitry <dimamakhnin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I tried so hard to find an example of Ruby using smalltalk message syntax. > You can do something like: > > class Dictionary > attr_accessor :dict > > def initialize() > @dict = {} > end > > def at(*args) > if (args.length == 1) then > return @dict[args[0]] > end > @dict[args[0]] = args[1][:put] > end > end > > dict = Dictionary.new > dict.at 3, put: 4 > puts dict.dict > puts dict.at 3 > > > But it's pretty expensive to disambiguate messages to "at" this way. > > The JS approach was much simpler since each message like 'at:put:' or 'at' > were sent to appropriate receiver functions, whereas this is just a > spaghetti :\ > > I'm sure there's more elegant way of doing this in Ruby but I haven't found > it :| > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by CodeDmitry

I tried so hard to find an example of Ruby using smalltalk message syntax. You can do something like: class Dictionary attr_accessor :dict def initialize() @dict = {} end def at(*args) if (args.length == 1) then return @dict[args[0]] end @dict[args[0]] = args[1][:put] end end dict = Dictionary.new dict.at 3, put: 4 puts dict.dict puts dict.at 3 But it's pretty expensive to disambiguate messages to "at" this way. The JS approach was much simpler since each message like 'at:put:' or 'at' were sent to appropriate receiver functions, whereas this is just a spaghetti :\ I'm sure there's more elegant way of doing this in Ruby but I haven't found it :| -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by Dimitris Chloupis

"I was actually curious about this in Ruby as well, since Ruby also doesn't have the Smalltalk message syntax. " Actually, it does when i said in my reply "The only other languages that have such an implementation are ObjC and Ruby which borrow this directly from Smalltalk." What I mean is that both ObjC and Ruby has a message based OOP system , like Smalltalk. http://rubylearning.com/blog/2010/11/03/do-you-understand-rubys-objects-mes… On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 11:50 AM CodeDmitry <dimamakhnin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I was actually curious about this in Ruby as well, since Ruby also doesn't > have the Smalltalk message syntax. > > I figure that the magic behind it is that Smalltalk takes strings like > "dict > at: 'foo' put: 'bar'" and evaluates them into a JavaScript equivalent of > "dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar')". > > Basically, my proof of concept(I cheated with regex to cut time): > > 'use strict'; > > var Dictionary = function Dictionary() { > this.dict = {}; > }; > Dictionary.prototype['at:put:'] = function(index, value) { > this.dict[index] = value; > }; > Object.defineProperty(Dictionary, 'new', { > get: function () { > return new this; > } > }); > > function st_eval(str) { > var x = str.match(/(dict)\s+(at):\s+'(foo)'\s+(put):\s+'(bar)'/); > var target = x[1]; > var callName = x[2] + ':' + x[4] + ':'; > var argv = [x[3], x[5]]; > var realTarget = eval(target); > realTarget[callName].apply(realTarget, argv); > } > > var dict = Dictionary.new; > console.log(dict); > //dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar'); > console.log(dict); > st_eval("dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'"); > console.log(dict); > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by CodeDmitry

I was actually curious about this in Ruby as well, since Ruby also doesn't have the Smalltalk message syntax. I figure that the magic behind it is that Smalltalk takes strings like "dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'" and evaluates them into a JavaScript equivalent of "dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar')". Basically, my proof of concept(I cheated with regex to cut time): 'use strict'; var Dictionary = function Dictionary() { this.dict = {}; }; Dictionary.prototype['at:put:'] = function(index, value) { this.dict[index] = value; }; Object.defineProperty(Dictionary, 'new', { get: function () { return new this; } }); function st_eval(str) { var x = str.match(/(dict)\s+(at):\s+'(foo)'\s+(put):\s+'(bar)'/); var target = x[1]; var callName = x[2] + ':' + x[4] + ':'; var argv = [x[3], x[5]]; var realTarget = eval(target); realTarget[callName].apply(realTarget, argv); } var dict = Dictionary.new; console.log(dict); //dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar'); console.log(dict); st_eval("dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'"); console.log(dict); -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by Dimitris Chloupis

`There is no equivalent in JavaScript because Javascript does not have function calls with keyword arguments and even if it , it would still be not equivalent at least technically. The message "at:put:" is indeed a keyword that is part of the dictionary of the object and not just a generic dictionary. So each object has its own dictionary that associates keywords to method calls. So in Smalltalk you can not access neither variables (class or instance) nor methods (class or instance) outside the object, they all are accessed through messages. This happens to hide the implementation, hence the complexity of the object. The user does not need to know how the Object works only how to use it. The only other languages that have such an implementation are ObjC and Ruby which borrow this directly from Smalltalk. Also Javascript uses prototype based OOP while Snalltalk is the first language to implement class based OOP. They are similar but not the same. On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 8:28 AM CodeDmitry <dimamakhnin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So "at: x put: y" translates to a method named #at:put:(or "at:put:")? > > |dict| > dict := Dictionary new. > dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'. > > So javascript equivalent would be(assuming the Dictionary object existed). > > var dict; > > dict = new Dictionary; > dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar'); > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by Tudor Girba

The value of the method name is at:put: # denotes a Symbol, which is a subclass of String. The difference between the two is that two symbols with the same value will actually be the same object, while this is not necessarily the case with strings: stringA := String newFrom: 'string'. stringB := String newFrom: 'string'. stringA == stringB âfalse". symbolA := Symbol newFrom: 'symbol'. symbolB := Symbol newFrom: 'symbol'. symbolA == symbolB "true" Cheers, Doru > On Oct 16, 2016, at 7:19 AM, CodeDmitry <dimamakhnin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > So "at: x put: y" translates to a method named #at:put:(or "at:put:")? > > |dict| > dict := Dictionary new. > dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'. > > So javascript equivalent would be(assuming the Dictionary object existed). > > var dict; > > dict = new Dictionary; > dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar'); > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "The coherence of a trip is given by the clearness of the goal."

Oct. 16, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] How do Smalltalk disambiguate messages?

by CodeDmitry

So "at: x put: y" translates to a method named #at:put:(or "at:put:")? |dict| dict := Dictionary new. dict at: 'foo' put: 'bar'. So javascript equivalent would be(assuming the Dictionary object existed). var dict; dict = new Dictionary; dict['at:put:']('foo', 'bar'); -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/How-do-Smalltalk-disambiguate-messages-tp4918946p4918… Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Oct. 16, 2016