- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

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

Re: [Pharo-users] When a metaclass is initialised by the system ?

by Dimitris Chloupis

ok that means I cannot rely on it and I will have to initialize my class variables in specific methods. No problem, ifNil here I come :) On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:24 AM Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > Hi Dimitris, > > > On 07 Dec 2015, at 23:12, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I have read that a metaclass (class side of the class) is initialised > when its loaded to the image by monticello, Are there any other cases when > the initialize method of the the metaclass is being called ? > > Correct: a class #initialize is called when its code is loaded, but only > if it is not yet present or different in source code from what is already > present (this last point will bite you one day ;-). > > Else, the #initialize should be called manually (for example to reload > some caches, or reset some system state). This sometimes happens in > #postLoads or install scripts. > > I am not aware of any automatic invocations. > > Sven > > > > >

Dec. 8, 2015

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

by Dimitris Chloupis

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 blake watson

This is undeniably true. UberJars and UberWars are yooooge. On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 3:29 PM, phil(a)highoctane.be <phil(a)highoctane.be> wrote: > Image size? What a joke when one faces "Uber Jars"... > > http://fiji.sc/Uber-JAR > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> And this "victory of dead code and date" that files usually promote can >> further benefit Pharo . >> >> For example lets take one of the main problems of the Pharo image, its >> size. There is already an effort to modularilise the image to make it small >> and everything else installable and unistallable. >> >> But why not go a step further and have dead zone files. So you end up >> with a tiny image containing just the basics (few kbs if possible) even no >> GUI and IDE tools and instead you have a collection of files that can be >> read by the image , each file contains a diffirent project, you can view >> their code and their data but not install them in the image to do so. And >> only when you decide that "sure I could use this project" then you instruct >> the image to import the file and make the code and the data live and part >> of the image. This way the pharo system can keep growing without growing >> the image at all and let the users decide how much they want to grow the >> image themselves. >> >> Technically speaking this functionality is already available through >> monticello , where monticello allow you to view a local or remote >> repository of code without loading the code to the image (via the "open >> button"). So its not even a new concept. Though in my mind I imagine all >> this happening from inside the System Browser. >> >> Thats just one scenario how dead data and code can greatly benefit the >> Pharo system. I can keep brainstorming forever for the usefulness of files >> for Pharo. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:20 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> You make a convincing argument. Files are useful. >>> >>> In modern circumstances, Smalltalk has to coexist with a file-based >>> world. >>> As Joachim wrote earlier, we are well-equipped to deal with files, but >>> we do >>> not think in terms of files when we code our applications. We are not >>> obliged to use a file-based toolchain. The point of my article was to >>> persuade other developers that letting their obsession with file-based >>> tools >>> prevent them from adopting Smalltalk is short-sighted and >>> counter-productive. Files have their uses, but they should look beyond >>> files >>> for other software creation possibilities. Smalltalk has much to offer. >>> >>> And, yes, it would be very good to have 64-bit support in Smalltalk. >>> >>> >>> >>> kilon.alios 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@ >>> >>> > > 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. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/Stop-Thinking-in-Terms-of-Files-tp4865614p4865872.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 phil＠highoctane.be

Image size? What a joke when one faces "Uber Jars"... http://fiji.sc/Uber-JAR On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > And this "victory of dead code and date" that files usually promote can > further benefit Pharo . > > For example lets take one of the main problems of the Pharo image, its > size. There is already an effort to modularilise the image to make it small > and everything else installable and unistallable. > > But why not go a step further and have dead zone files. So you end up with > a tiny image containing just the basics (few kbs if possible) even no GUI > and IDE tools and instead you have a collection of files that can be read > by the image , each file contains a diffirent project, you can view their > code and their data but not install them in the image to do so. And only > when you decide that "sure I could use this project" then you instruct the > image to import the file and make the code and the data live and part of > the image. This way the pharo system can keep growing without growing the > image at all and let the users decide how much they want to grow the image > themselves. > > Technically speaking this functionality is already available through > monticello , where monticello allow you to view a local or remote > repository of code without loading the code to the image (via the "open > button"). So its not even a new concept. Though in my mind I imagine all > this happening from inside the System Browser. > > Thats just one scenario how dead data and code can greatly benefit the > Pharo system. I can keep brainstorming forever for the usefulness of files > for Pharo. > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 9:20 PM horrido <horrido.hobbies(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> You make a convincing argument. Files are useful. >> >> In modern circumstances, Smalltalk has to coexist with a file-based world. >> As Joachim wrote earlier, we are well-equipped to deal with files, but we >> do >> not think in terms of files when we code our applications. We are not >> obliged to use a file-based toolchain. The point of my article was to >> persuade other developers that letting their obsession with file-based >> tools >> prevent them from adopting Smalltalk is short-sighted and >> counter-productive. Files have their uses, but they should look beyond >> files >> for other software creation possibilities. Smalltalk has much to offer. >> >> And, yes, it would be very good to have 64-bit support in Smalltalk. >> >> >> >> kilon.alios 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@ >> >> > > 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/Stop-Thinking-in-Terms-of-Files-tp4865614p4865872.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >>

Dec. 7, 2015

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

by Ben Coman

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. 7, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] [squeak-dev] Name change: Mushroom ( was Re: evolutions of squeakelib & crypto)

by Robert Withers

Ben, Huw, Todd and Sven, thank you all for your feedback! I suppose I could call the project "CryptOCaps" but for some reason I glommed onto mushroom as the name. Not grandiose and it is somewhat descriptive...a network of secure sessions, each one a mushroom. Ceps are highly valued. We can tag it for the catalog. For sure, we have Seaside, Morphic, Nebraska, Fuel, Alien, Cog, Monticello and that's just the squeak side of unusual naming of projects. I hope that "mushroom" gains a wide reputation as a solid, reliable, secure and performant session layer under the CryptOCaps presentation...I am thinking of splitting the secure session layer from the ocaps presentation layer, but this would require another name choice, so I hesitate...perhaps "Risotto"? What are your thoughts? Best, Robert On 12/07/2015 10:38 AM, Ben Coman wrote: > I like it, but it seems you missed my point :) > mushroom --> 117,000,000 is two orders of magnitude more hidden. > Anyway, maybe I overplay its significance. > cheers -ben > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Robert Withers > <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I renamed the project to Mushroom and I also dumped the encoding work to >> focus on shutdown, optimization and serialization. Here's the wiki: >> https://github.com/SqueakCryptographySquad/Mushroom/wiki >> >> thanks,Robert >> >> >> On 12/06/2015 01:42 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Robert Withers >>> <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2015 09:24 PM, Ben Coman wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Robert Withers >>>>> <robert.w.withers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Now I think you are right on with your observation. Additionally, the >>>>>> number >>>>>> of dialects could increase further with Fuel serialization, just port >>>>>> SecureSession and bits. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alright, I came up with a name and it may border on the egregious ... >>>>>> presenting ... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Maelstrom" >>>>> Great sounding name. However some general advice for the community, >>>>> since I see a lot of great sounding project names drowned out in the >>>>> noise of our web-search-centric universe. A litmus test for project >>>>> naming is using google search to find which return low search results. >>>>> Today, its more important to be unique than any other attribute of a >>>>> name. So in general, *dictionary* english words are not the best. >>>>> One technique is to intentionally mispell the word you like. Here are >>>>> some comparative examples (note, the surrounding quotes are required >>>>> to avoid google trying to be helpful and correct the spelling)... >>>>> >>>>> "maelstrom" --> 7,480,000 >>>>> "maelstroom" --> 6,200 >>>>> "maelstrum" --> 2,280 >>>>> "maelstruum" --> 7 >>>>> >>>>> Lots of interesting other techniques can be found by searching on: >>>>> techniques to generate brand names or domain names. >>>>> >>>>> cheers -ben >>>> >>>> I would be happy to change the names to something more unique, though it >>>> may >>>> take a few. Are you suggesting "maelstruum"? >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Robert >>>> >>>> >>> *Suggesting* yes, but the choice is yours ;) You need to own it. >>> >>> I think maelstruum is certainly memorable with the double "u", but >>> maybe jarring next the the "m". I'm inclined to maelstroom, since I >>> associate it with "zoom". I wouldn't necessarily go for the absolute >>> lowest results. I have an entirely unsubstantiated belief that >>> anything less than 10,000 gives a reasonable chance to compete once a >>> user's browsing history is taken into account. Finally you need to >>> check existing results don't return something abhorrent (I didn't do >>> this). >>> >>> I'd encourage to play around testing on google search. Its quick and >>> easy to generate and test alternatives. I've added a few more below. >>> "maelstra" --> 3,560 >>> "maelstram" --> 504 >>> "maelstrim" --> 1200 >>> "maelstroon" --> 58 >>> "maelstroomi" --> 4 >>> >>> btw, I wouldn't swap the order of the "ae" since that would be >>> susceptible to real typing errors. >>> >>> cheers -ben >>> >>

Dec. 7, 2015

Re: [Pharo-users] When a metaclass is initialised by the system ?

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

Hi Dimitris, > On 07 Dec 2015, at 23:12, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I have read that a metaclass (class side of the class) is initialised when its loaded to the image by monticello, Are there any other cases when the initialize method of the the metaclass is being called ? Correct: a class #initialize is called when its code is loaded, but only if it is not yet present or different in source code from what is already present (this last point will bite you one day ;-). Else, the #initialize should be called manually (for example to reload some caches, or reset some system state). This sometimes happens in #postLoads or install scripts. I am not aware of any automatic invocations. Sven

Dec. 7, 2015

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

by Peter Uhnak

On 12/07, Alejandro Infante wrote: > Hi, > It is really difficult to help you just with a profile and without looking at your code. > Even though, I have noticed that most of the time is used on calculating properties related to CompositeShapes (like position and encompassing rectangle). > > Would be possible for you to run the same code but replacing the CompositeShape by another less complex shape (like RTBox)? > If this new experiment is fast, then the problem would be those 2 properties (position and encompassing rectangle) are too expensive, and therefore we should think how to optimize that code. > > I know that ForceLayout is not the fastest layout, but 59 seconds is too much for just 13 elements. The complexity should be nlog(n) per iteration. For such small diagram this should be pretty much instant. However from the profiler I can see that a _lot_ of time is spent in calculating the label size, which definitely shouldn't be this slow... If you want to look at the other layouts, look at this https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31543901/AgileVisualization/Layout/0106… > > Cheers, > Alejandro > > > 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 <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 > -- Peter

Dec. 7, 2015