- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] Configuration browser and Fuel

by Esteban Lorenzano

Hi, On 03 Jun 2014, at 08:01, phil(a)highoctane.be wrote: > In Pharo 3.0 we do have Fuel in the image. > > Now, there is also Fuel in the ConfigurationBrowser. > > When one wants to work with Fuel, should one update the image with what is in the ConfigurationBrowser? no Esteban > > TIA > Phil

June 3, 2014

Configuration browser and Fuel

by phil＠highoctane.be

In Pharo 3.0 we do have Fuel in the image. Now, there is also Fuel in the ConfigurationBrowser. When one wants to work with Fuel, should one update the image with what is in the ConfigurationBrowser? TIA Phil

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by Andrew Glynn

I don't think the claim is that Pharo or any Smalltalk is 'simple', but when someone new to coding has to first learn how to pretend they're using a late 70"s terminal and a crappy text editor, then remember 20000 arcane commands just to get a project built, never mind debug it, the price of entry before starting to code is too high. Coding is stressful enough (unlike most people's tasks, it has to actually work) which helps understand why the average age that coders quit and go into another field is only 30 years old. A high initial curve cuts a very short average productive career that much shorter. I wouldn't worry about swift being as bad as JS. Nothing is. On Jun 3, 2014 4:21 AM, "kilon alios" <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "What makes Pharo and Smalltalk so cool is this magical simplicity on so > many levels." > > I have a problem with this, I think its not sincere. I know that a Pharo > developers would love to throw on my face the basic syntax of Pharo that > can fit in a single page but the truth is that Pharo because it is > Smalltalk it follows the exact same recipe of the "get the F!@#$% out" > which means it throws everything outside the language in form of libraries > of objects. Pharo is definetly not that simple. Why ? Because coding is not > simple . > > So if it is to be a fair comparison take those 500 pages and > find equivalent features in Pharo and I don't think you will find that they > are that different in terms of complexity. > > And its not as if Swift is revolutionary any more than Smalltalk or Pharo > is revolutionary. All languages copy from each other. > > I will have to agree that Pharo appears simpler than Swift, but I doubt > that it does not miss many features that Swift has. As you said its too > early to say. > > I have not read those 500 pages, personally I dont see what the big deal > is, PBE is 400 pages and barely touches what Pharo really is. I fail for > the time being viewing Swift as a complex language, I just hope does not > end up as ugly as JavaScript. Good ideas that are badly implemented. I > doubt it though. > > PS: I am downloading the Swift manual right now > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> > wrote: > >> >> On 03 Jun 2014, at 10:53, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > For anyone who has not not watched it yet, you can watch the Playground >> demo here. Looks like they were inspired by Bred Victor demos. >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62x8Oq_QP4 >> > >> > Swift is statically typed with type inference. BUT it has generics and >> optional types. So it looks like it tries to let you have the cake and eat >> it too. >> >> It is way to early to have an opinion (especially since one should use a >> language before commenting), but ... >> >> 1 - it is very nice to see Apple play in the language design world (it >> will get traction I am sure) >> 2 - it feels like a pretty complex language, both in terms of syntax >> options, concepts and rules, especially around types (the language book is >> 500 pages I believe) >> >> What makes Pharo and Smalltalk so cool is this magical simplicity on so >> many levels. >> >> > It also removes the need for header files , so it really moves away >> from the C paradigm. >> > >> > There is a quick toor here >> > >> > >> https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conc… >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > The work on GToolkit goes in this direction. Funny enough, we also have >> a Playground :). >> > >> > Look here for an example: >> > >> http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/dynamic-exploration-of-a-postgres-db-… >> > >> > More will come in this direction. I happen to believe that this is the >> area with the largest potential in Pharo, and it would be great to put more >> effort around it. If people have an interest to participate, please just >> let me know. >> > >> > + 1 >> > >> > Now my plate is full but I encourage people to join effort. >> > >> > Stef >> > >> > >> >> >> >

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by kilon alios

"What makes Pharo and Smalltalk so cool is this magical simplicity on so many levels." I have a problem with this, I think its not sincere. I know that a Pharo developers would love to throw on my face the basic syntax of Pharo that can fit in a single page but the truth is that Pharo because it is Smalltalk it follows the exact same recipe of the "get the F!@#$% out" which means it throws everything outside the language in form of libraries of objects. Pharo is definetly not that simple. Why ? Because coding is not simple . So if it is to be a fair comparison take those 500 pages and find equivalent features in Pharo and I don't think you will find that they are that different in terms of complexity. And its not as if Swift is revolutionary any more than Smalltalk or Pharo is revolutionary. All languages copy from each other. I will have to agree that Pharo appears simpler than Swift, but I doubt that it does not miss many features that Swift has. As you said its too early to say. I have not read those 500 pages, personally I dont see what the big deal is, PBE is 400 pages and barely touches what Pharo really is. I fail for the time being viewing Swift as a complex language, I just hope does not end up as ugly as JavaScript. Good ideas that are badly implemented. I doubt it though. PS: I am downloading the Swift manual right now On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven(a)stfx.eu> wrote: > > On 03 Jun 2014, at 10:53, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > For anyone who has not not watched it yet, you can watch the Playground > demo here. Looks like they were inspired by Bred Victor demos. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62x8Oq_QP4 > > > > Swift is statically typed with type inference. BUT it has generics and > optional types. So it looks like it tries to let you have the cake and eat > it too. > > It is way to early to have an opinion (especially since one should use a > language before commenting), but ... > > 1 - it is very nice to see Apple play in the language design world (it > will get traction I am sure) > 2 - it feels like a pretty complex language, both in terms of syntax > options, concepts and rules, especially around types (the language book is > 500 pages I believe) > > What makes Pharo and Smalltalk so cool is this magical simplicity on so > many levels. > > > It also removes the need for header files , so it really moves away from > the C paradigm. > > > > There is a quick toor here > > > > > https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conc… > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > The work on GToolkit goes in this direction. Funny enough, we also have > a Playground :). > > > > Look here for an example: > > > http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/dynamic-exploration-of-a-postgres-db-… > > > > More will come in this direction. I happen to believe that this is the > area with the largest potential in Pharo, and it would be great to put more > effort around it. If people have an interest to participate, please just > let me know. > > > > + 1 > > > > Now my plate is full but I encourage people to join effort. > > > > Stef > > > > > > >

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by Sven Van Caekenberghe

On 03 Jun 2014, at 10:53, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > For anyone who has not not watched it yet, you can watch the Playground demo here. Looks like they were inspired by Bred Victor demos. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62x8Oq_QP4 > > Swift is statically typed with type inference. BUT it has generics and optional types. So it looks like it tries to let you have the cake and eat it too. It is way to early to have an opinion (especially since one should use a language before commenting), but ... 1 - it is very nice to see Apple play in the language design world (it will get traction I am sure) 2 - it feels like a pretty complex language, both in terms of syntax options, concepts and rules, especially around types (the language book is 500 pages I believe) What makes Pharo and Smalltalk so cool is this magical simplicity on so many levels. > It also removes the need for header files , so it really moves away from the C paradigm. > > There is a quick toor here > > https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conc… > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > The work on GToolkit goes in this direction. Funny enough, we also have a Playground :). > > Look here for an example: > http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/dynamic-exploration-of-a-postgres-db-… > > More will come in this direction. I happen to believe that this is the area with the largest potential in Pharo, and it would be great to put more effort around it. If people have an interest to participate, please just let me know. > > + 1 > > Now my plate is full but I encourage people to join effort. > > Stef > >

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by Yuriy Tymchuk

On 03 Jun 2014, at 14:23, kilon alios <kilon.alios(a)gmail.com> wrote: > For anyone who has not not watched it yet, you can watch the Playground demo here. Looks like they were inspired by Bred Victor demos. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62x8Oq_QP4 > > Swift is statically typed with type inference. BUT it has generics and optional types. So it looks like it tries to let you have the cake and eat it too. > > It also removes the need for header files , so it really moves away from the C paradigm. > > There is a quick toor here > > https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conc… We have to do some type inference (for tools) some time. Should be fun. (by the way, is there something like that already?) Uko > > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Hi, > > The work on GToolkit goes in this direction. Funny enough, we also have a Playground :). > > Look here for an example: > http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/dynamic-exploration-of-a-postgres-db-… > > More will come in this direction. I happen to believe that this is the area with the largest potential in Pharo, and it would be great to put more effort around it. If people have an interest to participate, please just let me know. > > + 1 > > Now my plate is full but I encourage people to join effort. > > Stef > >

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by kilon alios

For anyone who has not not watched it yet, you can watch the Playground demo here. Looks like they were inspired by Bred Victor demos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l62x8Oq_QP4 Swift is statically typed with type inference. BUT it has generics and optional types. So it looks like it tries to let you have the cake and eat it too. It also removes the need for header files , so it really moves away from the C paradigm. There is a quick toor here https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/Swift/Conc… On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:29 AM, stepharo <stepharo(a)free.fr> wrote: > > Hi, >> >> The work on GToolkit goes in this direction. Funny enough, we also have a >> Playground :). >> >> Look here for an example: >> http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/dynamic-exploration- >> of-a-postgres-db-with-the-gtinspector/ >> >> More will come in this direction. I happen to believe that this is the >> area with the largest potential in Pharo, and it would be great to put more >> effort around it. If people have an interest to participate, please just >> let me know. >> > > + 1 > > Now my plate is full but I encourage people to join effort. > > Stef > >

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by stepharo

> Hi, > > The work on GToolkit goes in this direction. Funny enough, we also > have a Playground :). > > Look here for an example: > http://www.humane-assessment.com/blog/dynamic-exploration-of-a-postgres-db-… > > More will come in this direction. I happen to believe that this is the > area with the largest potential in Pharo, and it would be great to put > more effort around it. If people have an interest to participate, > please just let me know. + 1 Now my plate is full but I encourage people to join effort. Stef

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by Camille Teruel

On 3 juin 2014, at 09:10, ClÃ©ment Bera <bera.clement(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2014-06-03 8:40 GMT+02:00 jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de <jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de>: > I remember seeing a demo of F# at an Eclipse conference a few years ago. It also very much reminded me of Smalltalk. > > What's interesting about swift is not only that Apple chose an existing name for their new programming language (interesting for a company that is very careful about their own brand names), but that swift seems to be statically typed, while one of the biggest advantages of Objective-C is that it allows for dynamic typing (to some extent)... > > To what I understand, types are inferred, it is not statically typed. Am I wrong ? If there is type inference then it is statically typed (at least partially if not every variable type can be inferred) > > Clement > > Joachim > > Am 03.06.14 08:33, schrieb darrinm: > > This is the sort of thing Smalltalk seems well suited for (live coding w/ > value and iteration display). Does anyone know of something like it that has > been done before in Smalltalk? > > I don't have a good link to a demonstration purely of the Playground but > there is a little info here: https://developer.apple.com/swift/ > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Xcode-s-Swift-Playground-tp4761425.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de > Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de > D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com > Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1 > > >

June 3, 2014

Re: [Pharo-users] Xcode's Swift Playground

by kilon alios

The big question here is not whether Pharo can implement something similar to Playground, Moose and Roassal in particular are quite close. The one million dollars question is Swift a live coding language or is Swift a language with some live coding tools. Obviously I would love to be the first option, but for the time being I try to contain my enthusiasm. When it comes to love coding lisp and smalltalk appear to have no competition AFAIK, I would love if Swift joins the club, If its the second option, really pity for Swift but still better than nothing. Obviously its extremely early to tell without actually testing the tools ourselves. It looks like that both lisp and smalltalk are still the pillar upon which modern languages are based and that can be only good news. The one billion dollars question is how well live coding of Swift would play with live coding of Pharo , it would awesome to have a unified live coding environment for both langauges and I see pharo developers bringing a ton of native ios and macos libraries to pharo. Its difficult not to get excited with this. On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:16 AM, jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de < jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de> wrote: > Clement, > > Hmm, as far as I've read (and I haven't read much), all methods have an > obligatory return type. > > But you can write let a = "some text", so I guess you are right. And me > probably too ;-) > > Joachim > > > > > Am 03.06.14 09:10, schrieb ClÃ©ment Bera: > > > > > 2014-06-03 8:40 GMT+02:00 jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de <jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de > >: > >> I remember seeing a demo of F# at an Eclipse conference a few years ago. >> It also very much reminded me of Smalltalk. >> >> What's interesting about swift is not only that Apple chose an existing >> name for their new programming language (interesting for a company that is >> very careful about their own brand names), but that swift seems to be >> statically typed, while one of the biggest advantages of Objective-C is >> that it allows for dynamic typing (to some extent)... >> > > To what I understand, types are inferred, it is not statically typed. Am > I wrong ? > > Clement > >> >> Joachim >> >> Am 03.06.14 08:33, schrieb darrinm: >> >> This is the sort of thing Smalltalk seems well suited for (live coding w/ >>> value and iteration display). Does anyone know of something like it that >>> has >>> been done before in Smalltalk? >>> >>> I don't have a good link to a demonstration purely of the Playground but >>> there is a little info here: https://developer.apple.com/swift/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://forum.world.st/Xcode-s-Swift-Playground-tp4761425.html >>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de >> Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de >> D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com >> Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 <%2B49%207141%2056%2010%2086%200> >> Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1 <%2B49%207141%2056%2010%2086%201> >> >> >> > > > -- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de <jtuchel(a)objektfabrik.de> > Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de > D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com > Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1 > >

June 3, 2014