- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Intro to Microsoft COM for Smalltalkers

by phil＠highoctane.be

Case in point, I am submitting a proposal here: https://devfest.be/blog/posts/cfp/ That's Google tech event here. I proposed to showcase MDL in Pharo along with workshop. Let's see how it goes... Phil On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas < offray.luna(a)mutabit.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 02/10/16 17:13, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > > [...] > >> Use it whenever you can, it will force you to understand how to do real >> stuff with it properly. >> >> I do hackathons with it. https://hackernoon.com/hackapo >> st-how-hackathons-can-be-the-best-learning-tool-under-the- >> sun-9c97e567e0a5 >> >> > As complementary to the infrastructure, code standards, libraries and so > on, a needed contribution, from the social dynamics perspective, are > hachathons and workshops. We're making them regularly here (link at [1], in > Spanish), with a critical data/code literacy approach. Last week we have > our 5th edition and this week we're going to make an agile 6th edition. > > [1] http://mutabit.com/dataweek/ > > I found the Pharo community very open to contribution. The fast feedback > loop [2] is experienced here in a very visible way and most of the time the > community is welcoming (with notable few exceptions, "ad hominen" attacks > and poor argumentation, but also with a good self-correcting feedback from > the broader community). > > [2] http://www.slideshare.net/MarcusDenker/perfection-feedback- > loops-or-why-worse-is-better-65540840 > > So is not a perfect place, as any other, but you'll find a way of > contributing that is considered worthy and encouraged and even supported > with economical resources from Pharo Association / Consorcium from time to > time. > > Welcome here, you and your contribution ;-), > > Offray > > >

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Intro to Microsoft COM for Smalltalkers

by phil＠highoctane.be

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Thibault Raffaillac < thibault.raffaillac(a)inria.fr> wrote: > I am not very fond of event loops in general, because they imply "many > inputs, one output" (process all pending events, then update screen). > For Morphic this is fine, because it displays on one screen, refreshing > at/around its frequency. But there might be other screens, or > network-output, file-output, which have different refresh frequencies. Then > you would want to process input events as they trigger rather than storing > them in a queue, such that whichever output destination sees the most > up-to-date state of the program. > One upfront queue with several workers is the way to do this fast and in a scalable way. Nothing new under the sun, Tuxedo has been doing this for eons, as is any decent TP framework. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuxedo_(software) Most of this has been rehashed a lot of times bringing nothing new to the table. Best closest thing for free would be RabbitMQ. Works fine. Even has an MQTT component, which makes it great for IoT. > Javascript has this cool function, requestAnimationFrame, which sets a > one-time callback right before the next redraw. In essence it is an output > event, allowing some form of reactive programming (no loop, only callbacks > on input and output). > Yes, this is a nice one. This guy uses it a lot to super good effect: https://www.livecoding.tv/killroy/ - e.g. https://www.livecoding.tv/killroy/videos/xy8P1-prototypes-and-experiments-j… > In Pharo we have InputEventFetcher>>registerHandler: which is great for > getting input callbacks, but nothing for output :/ > WorldState>>addDeferredUIMessage: is probably a closest match, yet it is > bound to Morphic, preventing experiments on UI/video games. > Any alternatives? > This? http://www.smalltalkhub.com/#!/~Guille/ReactiveExtensions Maybe this (but not the same thing really) https://github.com/SquareBracketAssociates/PharoLimbo/blob/master/Xtreams/X… For video games, well, the ususal update/render with framerate adjustment is the typical loop. If the render is too slow vs the expected one things are skipped, several updates for a render. And user input is picked at one point during the update bit. Not really the same as a windowed GUI. Note that Windows has a queue per app these days (in 3.x days, it was a single queue for all of Windows, which is why things froze a lot. Same as current Pharo). Note also that in Pharo, the InputEventFetcher etc is just the default way and one can have an image doing things otherwise. Display is the raw thing, primitives can do whatever, so if you feel like it, you can reinvent something fully different on the platform. > Thibault > > > Here is some interesting event loop stuff from Tcl. > > > > http://wiki.tcl.tk/2567 > > > > I wish we had some easy Tk UI building things in Pharo. > > > > Spec is okay but not intuitive. As it is the only thing that exposes the > > myriad of various Morphs we have and shields us (somewhat) from the > > underlying details, we have to use it, but its explorability is really > > detrimental to the livecoding side of Pharo. > > > > Phil > > >

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo Association

by Esteban A. Maringolo

2016-10-03 9:08 GMT-03:00 Marcus Denker <marcus.denker(a)inria.fr>: > On 3 Oct 2016, at 08:59, John Pfersich <jpfersich(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I went to the Pharo Association web site (http://association.pharo.org) to > change my profile, but I didn't find any way to alter it. Am I missing > something? > > There seems to beb a problem with refresh. After logging in, go to > http://association.pharo.org/web/members and there should be menu entries > for editing. Also, I've been paying for BountySource Salt since January, and I'm not in the list either. https://salt.bountysource.com/teams/pharo/supporters Regards! Esteban A. Maringolo

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Intro to Microsoft COM for Smalltalkers

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Hi, On 02/10/16 17:13, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: [...] > Use it whenever you can, it will force you to understand how to do > real stuff with it properly. > > I do hackathons with it. > https://hackernoon.com/hackapost-how-hackathons-can-be-the-best-learning-to… > As complementary to the infrastructure, code standards, libraries and so on, a needed contribution, from the social dynamics perspective, are hachathons and workshops. We're making them regularly here (link at [1], in Spanish), with a critical data/code literacy approach. Last week we have our 5th edition and this week we're going to make an agile 6th edition. [1] http://mutabit.com/dataweek/ I found the Pharo community very open to contribution. The fast feedback loop [2] is experienced here in a very visible way and most of the time the community is welcoming (with notable few exceptions, "ad hominen" attacks and poor argumentation, but also with a good self-correcting feedback from the broader community). [2] http://www.slideshare.net/MarcusDenker/perfection-feedback-loops-or-why-wor… So is not a perfect place, as any other, but you'll find a way of contributing that is considered worthy and encouraged and even supported with economical resources from Pharo Association / Consorcium from time to time. Welcome here, you and your contribution ;-), Offray

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and git workflow

by Vitor Medina Cruz

I think it is pretty much what stash does, but it creates a named shelved change set that stays locally and that can be viewd from a list. You can create as many as you need and you can unshelve the entire change set, destroying it or not, or only part of it, even only one change from a method. https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/shelving-changes.html https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/2016.2/unshelving-changes.html This video shows how version control works on Intellij all around, the specific part on a very simple usage of the shelve feature can be seen at 8:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YW8-9oLgO0 On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Nicolas Passerini <npasserini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > No I do not know it, how does it work? > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yes, I agree on the case of fake commit, I prefer your usage of git. In >> the case of stash, I prefer Intellij shelve feature, do you know it? I >> think it helps me organize better than the stash, I use it all the time. >> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Passerini <npasserini(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> My two cents: having different images for branches is a good >>>> workaround, but I will have to manually control those images, while git >>>> abstracts this a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring >>>> back work in progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new >>>> image with a fresh HEAD would require a lot of time to bring all >>>> dependencies and compile, while just getting changes made at certain point >>>> from an image and stash them would be much faster, am I wrong? >>>> >>>> >>> Just one comment: the proposal is not to have an image for each branch, >>> you can switch branches using Iceberg. What Iceberg does support not >>> currently is just the "stash" command. >>> >>> Yet it could be slower to create a clean image with your changes, there >>> are ways to make it faster. Also git stash has its own problems, personally >>> I am not a fun of that feature, and I've seen lots of time people messing >>> with it and loosing changes. Moreover, I do not see that saving a "fake" >>> commit to later delete it as a "best practice", but more as a workaround >>> because you do not have a better tool. >>> >>> For all this grounds is that we do not see it as a priority, because we >>> think that there are other tools that can replace it (yet we would like to >>> listen to other opinions) . >>> >> >> >

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and git workflow

by Nicolas Passerini

No I do not know it, how does it work? On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, I agree on the case of fake commit, I prefer your usage of git. In > the case of stash, I prefer Intellij shelve feature, do you know it? I > think it helps me organize better than the stash, I use it all the time. > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Passerini <npasserini(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround, >>> but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this >>> a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in >>> progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new image with a >>> fresh HEAD would require a lot of time to bring all dependencies and >>> compile, while just getting changes made at certain point from an image and >>> stash them would be much faster, am I wrong? >>> >>> >> Just one comment: the proposal is not to have an image for each branch, >> you can switch branches using Iceberg. What Iceberg does support not >> currently is just the "stash" command. >> >> Yet it could be slower to create a clean image with your changes, there >> are ways to make it faster. Also git stash has its own problems, personally >> I am not a fun of that feature, and I've seen lots of time people messing >> with it and loosing changes. Moreover, I do not see that saving a "fake" >> commit to later delete it as a "best practice", but more as a workaround >> because you do not have a better tool. >> >> For all this grounds is that we do not see it as a priority, because we >> think that there are other tools that can replace it (yet we would like to >> listen to other opinions) . >> > >

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and git workflow

by Vitor Medina Cruz

Yes, I agree on the case of fake commit, I prefer your usage of git. In the case of stash, I prefer Intellij shelve feature, do you know it? I think it helps me organize better than the stash, I use it all the time. On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Nicolas Passerini <npasserini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround, >> but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this >> a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in >> progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new image with a >> fresh HEAD would require a lot of time to bring all dependencies and >> compile, while just getting changes made at certain point from an image and >> stash them would be much faster, am I wrong? >> >> > Just one comment: the proposal is not to have an image for each branch, > you can switch branches using Iceberg. What Iceberg does support not > currently is just the "stash" command. > > Yet it could be slower to create a clean image with your changes, there > are ways to make it faster. Also git stash has its own problems, personally > I am not a fun of that feature, and I've seen lots of time people messing > with it and loosing changes. Moreover, I do not see that saving a "fake" > commit to later delete it as a "best practice", but more as a workaround > because you do not have a better tool. > > For all this grounds is that we do not see it as a priority, because we > think that there are other tools that can replace it (yet we would like to > listen to other opinions) . >

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and git workflow

by Nicolas Passerini

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Vitor Medina Cruz <vitormcruz(a)gmail.com> wrote: > My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround, > but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this > a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in > progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new image with a > fresh HEAD would require a lot of time to bring all dependencies and > compile, while just getting changes made at certain point from an image and > stash them would be much faster, am I wrong? > > Just one comment: the proposal is not to have an image for each branch, you can switch branches using Iceberg. What Iceberg does support not currently is just the "stash" command. Yet it could be slower to create a clean image with your changes, there are ways to make it faster. Also git stash has its own problems, personally I am not a fun of that feature, and I've seen lots of time people messing with it and loosing changes. Moreover, I do not see that saving a "fake" commit to later delete it as a "best practice", but more as a workaround because you do not have a better tool. For all this grounds is that we do not see it as a priority, because we think that there are other tools that can replace it (yet we would like to listen to other opinions) .

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Intro to Microsoft COM for Smalltalkers

by Thibault Raffaillac

I am not very fond of event loops in general, because they imply "many inputs, one output" (process all pending events, then update screen). For Morphic this is fine, because it displays on one screen, refreshing at/around its frequency. But there might be other screens, or network-output, file-output, which have different refresh frequencies. Then you would want to process input events as they trigger rather than storing them in a queue, such that whichever output destination sees the most up-to-date state of the program. Javascript has this cool function, requestAnimationFrame, which sets a one-time callback right before the next redraw. In essence it is an output event, allowing some form of reactive programming (no loop, only callbacks on input and output). In Pharo we have InputEventFetcher>>registerHandler: which is great for getting input callbacks, but nothing for output :/ WorldState>>addDeferredUIMessage: is probably a closest match, yet it is bound to Morphic, preventing experiments on UI/video games. Any alternatives? Thibault > Here is some interesting event loop stuff from Tcl. > > http://wiki.tcl.tk/2567 > > I wish we had some easy Tk UI building things in Pharo. > > Spec is okay but not intuitive. As it is the only thing that exposes the > myriad of various Morphs we have and shields us (somewhat) from the > underlying details, we have to use it, but its explorability is really > detrimental to the livecoding side of Pharo. > > Phil

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [Pharo-users] Iceberg and git workflow

by Vitor Medina Cruz

My two cents: having different images for branches is a good workaround, but I will have to manually control those images, while git abstracts this a little since I have a way to tell it to stash and bring back work in progress. Depending on the project, I think loading a new image with a fresh HEAD would require a lot of time to bring all dependencies and compile, while just getting changes made at certain point from an image and stash them would be much faster, am I wrong? On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Nicolas Passerini <npasserini(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Holger, I think that both patterns are currently supported (in beta > version), but maybe we do not use exactly the same tools. > > First, Iceberg does not use the concept of "stash". The git stash changes > the file in your git working copy (on your file system), while your > (modified) code is not there, is in the Pharo image. > > Going deeper into it, we understand git is very powerful but we do not > believe that git is the ultimate perfect code versioning tool. We think > that there are some git usage patterns that tend to be difficult to > understand so we are trying to create a better abstraction on top of that. > Also we would like to come up with an abstraction that works not only for > git but for other repositories. > > So, we try to support the kind of requirements you are worried about, but > maybe not in the same way that the command line tools you are used to. I > also have been working with git in languages like Scala, Javascript, Xtend, > etc and I was used to the command line tools... so now the task for me is > to try to understand: which of all those things I was used to do were > really necessary and which of them are just boilerplate I need to do > because of my tools are too low level? > > Maybe your experience can help us answer that question. > > >> a.) If current HEAD is same as origin/master >> >> $ git stash (stash away my not finished changes) >> $ vi code.c fix.. >> $ git commit -a -c "subject >> >> long explanation of fix >> reference to bug" >> $ git stash apply (and go back to working on my feature) >> >> > So, why is this better than having a new image with a clean version of > HEAD? > > >> b.) E.g. if I finished n-commits but I am not fully done >> > > For this I would propose a slightly different pattern: > >> >> # store my work >> $ git commit -a -m "Work In Progress hack.." >> > > You can commit, ok... but also you could just save the image with your > work in progress, no need to create a hacky commit. > > >> $ git checkout -b new-feature-branch >> >> # go back to master >> $ git checkout master >> $ git reset --hard origin/master (to restore) >> > > To avoid reset, I would propose to leave master like that and put the new > work in a clean branch, starting on origin/master. > > In git-command-line language it would be: > git checkout -b fix origin/master > > So you create a new branch for your fix out of origin/master, leaving the > original branch untouched. > > >> >> # work on the fix >> $ vi code.c fix.. >> $ git commit -a -c "fix..." >> >> No problems here... just we do not use vi for editing code :) > > >> # go back and continue on my fix >> $ git checkout new-feature-branch >> > $ git rebase origin/master >> $ git reset HEAD^1 >> .. continue to work >> >> Several things here. First, I think that everything is simpler if you > just leave your original branch untouched, so you could re-checkout that > branch without the need for reset and removing hacky commits. But even more > interesting if you agree to have two images one for each task, you just go > back to your first image and everything is just like you left it, including > open windows and whatever task you were doing. I think that is a beautiful > value of Pharo I would not like to loose. > > The only thing left would be to incorporate the fix into this image, right > now we do not support rebase, you would need to merge... but I understand > why one would prefer rebase in this scenario, at some point we will support > both options. > > > So, to sum up. I am not trying to replicate in Pharo the way I used to > work in Javascript... I think that would be silly. Instead, we are trying > to take the good stuff of git into Pharo, but without loosing all the good > stuff of Pharo. >

Oct. 3, 2016