- Pharo-users - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-users] [FOSDEM] Grafoscopio

by Offray Vladimir Luna CÃ¡rdenas

Thanks a lot Santiago! You did a pretty good job representing the community and is nice to have you also in the community channels. I will shared on my networks. Offray On 7/02/20 2:50 a.Â m., Santiago Bragagnolo wrote: > Fosdem organization uploaded the videos on grafoscopio :). > > Maybe it would be nice to spread it through our medias > > https://video.fosdem.org/2020/AW1.126/open_research_pocket_infrastructures.… > https://video.fosdem.org/2020/AW1.126/open_research_pocket_infrastructures.… > > Santiago

Feb. 7, 2020

Re: [Pharo-users] Pharo 8.0 via get.pharo.org

by Konrad Hinsen

Hi Esteban, > No it doesnât :) > What you are getting looks like an error that happen when you try to execute zeroconf on top of an already existing zeroconf. Ahhh.... That explains everything. Here's what happened: - I tried downloading in a fresh directory - A second later, I had a power outage, and had to reboot my machine - Just to be sure I didn't have any corrupted files, I re-ran the VM download. So yes, I already had some or perhaps all of the files in the directory. > Can you try it on a clean directory? Works fine! Thanks, Konrad.

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by horrido

> The audience for the Smalltalk-inspired campaign is the other 99% of programmers who would never get past: "Smalltalk = 1980 = dead = not worth checking out". Never? This is what I've been trying to overcome for the past 5 years with hundreds of blogs. > Have already made up their mind and will not likely be convinced by a > soundbite anyway Agreed. However, hundreds of blogs over 5 years is much more than a "soundbite." I agree that Pharo's current "marketing" strategy is working, if by working you mean slow but steady growth. It may never become as "popular" as, say, Kotlin or Rust. I have a greater ambition for Smalltalk: to restore its popularity from 25 years ago. Or even from just 7 years ago when it was #37 at TIOBE <https://web.archive.org/web/20121215020045/http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/c…> . (Sadly, today it's not even in the Top 50.) I *believe* Smalltalk can have a bright future. Unfortunately, few people share this sentiment. https://youtu.be/BS_gLFOrjMw Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> pharo is not smalltalk >> TedVanGaalen wrote >>> Pharo IS Smalltalk, whether you like it or not. > > An ancient parable goes... > >> A group of blind men heard that a strange animal, called an elephant, had >> been brought to the town, but none of them were aware of its shape and >> form. Out of curiosity, they said: "We must inspect and know it by touch, >> of which we are capable". So, they sought it out, and when they found it >> they groped about it. In the case of the first person, whose hand landed >> on the trunk, said "This being is like a thick snake". For another one >> whose hand reached its ear, it seemed like a kind of fan. As for another >> person, whose hand was upon its leg, said, the elephant is a pillar like >> a >> tree-trunk. The blind man who placed his hand upon its side said the >> elephant, "is a wall". Another who felt its tail, described it as a rope. >> The last felt its tusk, stating the elephant is that which is hard, >> smooth >> and like a spear. > > And from its Wikipedia article: > >> In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to >> "see" the full elephant. > > TL;DR > > Two parts of the same elephant: > 1. Pharo is Smalltalk (in the sense that St-72, 76, and 80 are) > 2. Pharo is not Smalltalk (in the sense that most non-Smalltalkers think > that "Smalltalk" = St-80, so they would be mislead and unnecessary turned > off by #1) > > The *marketing* decision's logic is something like the following: Given > that > both of these soundbites are equally (un)true, which one is more likely to > bring people to Pharo? > > |-----------------|-------------Audience--------------------| > |--Sound Byte--|--Familiar w ST--|------Unfamiliar------| > ____________________________________________| > |--Pharo = ST---|-----N/A*-------| Ew! Last century!----| > |-Pharo ~= ST--|-----N/A*-------| Hmm, interesting...--| > * Have already made up their mind and will not likely be convinced by a > soundbite anyway > > While one can certainly understand disagreeing with the possible > effectiveness of the strategy, these threads usually IMHO have the feel of > a > holy war from the camp touching the "Pharo = ST" part of the elephant. > > In the unlikely event that anyone is still reading this, I'll paste my > longer explanation from a similar 2015 thread [1] > > Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> The best way to understand the rationale for Pharo's marketing decision >> is >> to read one of the many long threads about it on the Pharo lists. I doubt >> rehashing it will provide new value. >> >> The issue boils down to the fact that the term Smalltalk has been >> overloaded. The original meaning was prototype Dynabook software that was >> used to bootstrap its replacement every 4 years. This true definition, by >> design, leaves plenty of room for innovation. Unfortunately, when >> Smalltalk-80 was released to the world, that became what people mean when >> they use the word Smalltalk. Obviously, people already familiar with >> Smalltalk are going to look at Pharo and go, "oh look, it's Smalltalk"*. >> But that is not the target market. The audience for the >> Smalltalk-inspired >> campaign is the other 99% of programmers who would never get past: >> "Smalltalk = 1980 = dead = not worth checking out". >> >> Anyway, I'd rather get back to hacking than waste more time in these IMHO >> mostly-pointless debates. In fact, I disagree that unpopularity is a >> problem at all. I would say that our biggest advantage is not being >> popular. I'll take a small community of true-believers over a mob of >> trend >> followers any day. >> >> * Although they'd probably base that opinion on the syntax, which is the >> least important part of Smalltalk (the live environment being first, and >> libraries second). In fact, if Ruby had a live, dynamic, >> turtles-all-the-way-down environment, with a Morphic-like uniform, live >> interface, and Smalltalk-like tools, I probably wouldn't have gravitated >> to Smalltalk > > 1. Why Aren't People Using Smalltalk? > http://forum.world.st/Why-Aren-t-People-Using-Smalltalk-tp4843473p4848195.h… > > > > ----- > Cheers, > Sean > -- > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by TedVanGaalen

Although I'll stick to what I wrote, looking back at what I wrote, it appears as to be not friendly at all times, I will try to prevent that next time. It also has to do with communication in writing only, which is a whole lot different as talking and listening while e.g. sharing a table together and discuss things e.g. during a coffee break.. and some laughter at times. What I still kindly suggest: make improvement/changes only in such a way that anything written before will run without any modification, which in fact also means: do not deprecate things! Downward compatibility prevents people from have tediously edit and test their packages again and again each time some have the "brilliant" idea to deprecate stuff. This is probably the biggest curse in software development these days. If you want to implement newer core like things co-existence with previous is preferable. Do at the very least not alter the core/system classes. It is probably also the maximum level where standardization in Smalltalk is possible, nevertheless.. This attitude then could open up the possibility for minimal standardization for core/system classes. Solely on that level. On top of that everybody can build whatever they want. In any aspect in industry the awareness that standardization is a necessity is beyond any doubt, alas, not in software development. One of the reasons aeroplanes are falling from the sky, elections go wrong and so on. For those not aware about the importance of standardization: read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization Regards TedvG -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by TedVanGaalen

Although I'll stick to what I wrote, looking back at what I wrote, it appears as to be not friendly at all times, I will try to prevent that next time. It also has to do with communication in writing only, which is a whole lot different as talking and listening while e.g. sharing a table together and discuss things e.g. during a coffee break.. and some laughter at times. What I still kindly suggest: make improvement/changes only in such a way that anything written before will run without any modification, which in fact also means: do not deprecate things! Downward compatibility prevents people from have tediously edit and test their packages again and again each time some have the "brilliant" idea to deprecate stuff. This is probably the biggest curse in software development these days. If you want to implement newer core like things co-existence with previous is preferable. Do at the very least not alter the core/system classes. It is probably also the maximum level where standardization in Smalltalk is possible, nevertheless.. This attitude then could open up the possibility for minimal standardization for core/system classes. Solely on that level. On top of that everybody can build whatever they want. In any aspect in industry the awareness that standardization is a necessity is beyond any doubt, alas, not in software development. One of the reasons aeroplanes are falling from the sky, elections go wrong and so on. For those not aware about the importance of standardization: read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization Regards TedvG -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by Kasper Ãsterbye

This is actually a very good issue you have raised. As far as I am able to read the code for Dictionary and HashedCollection, the implementation is not very well suited for deletions at all. First, as you have discovered, the remove has an implementation which is unsound (performance wise). Second, HashedCollections grow when you add to them, but they do not shrink when you remove from them. That is, in scenarios where your dictionaries grow huge, and then later shrink, there is a potential âmemory leakâ in that the array is kept at its largest size. Btw, thanks for the shuffle function using sort. I do believe the built-in shuffle in SequenceableCollection is faster though (O(nÂ·logn) vs. O(n)). It seems from the wikipedia page on hash tables, that the there are algorithms with efficient removal also for the "open addressing with linear probingâ implementation used in HashedCollection. But it only seems to work if the hash table is also implementing a âshrinkâ function which is where the re-hashing is done. Interesting stuff. It would be a good programming exercise to get that to work. â Kasper On 7 February 2020 at 11.17.27, LABORDE Pierre ( pierre.laborde(a)fr.thalesgroup.com) wrote: Thanks Peter. Here some informations about execution time : *dic := Dictionary new: 10000.* *Time microsecondsToRun:[* * 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i |* * dic at: i put: i printString.* * ].* *]. "6000Âµs"* *Time microsecondsToRun:[* * 1 to: 10000 do:[ :i |* * dic removeKey: i. * * ].* *]. "2683000Âµs, up to 447x"* Regarding your comment, I have wrote a too simple example. Here a new test with a better representation of my need and datas (randomization) : *dic := Dictionary new: 10000.* *pool := SortedCollection new: 10000.* *random := Random new.* *pool sort:[ :a :b | random next < 0.5 ].* *1 to: 10000 do:[ :i | pool add: i ].* *Time microsecondsToRun:[* * pool do:[ :i |* * dic at: i put: i printString.* * ].* *]. "6000Âµs => same time, good point"* *Time microsecondsToRun:[* * pool do:[ :i |* * dic removeKey: i. * * ].* *]. "17000Âµs, up to 2,8x => huge changes !"* Itâs appear more reasonable ! I need to test it with real datas, to be continued. Thanks for all. Pierre *De :* Pharo-users [mailto:pharo-users-bounces@lists.pharo.org] *De la part de* PBKResearch *EnvoyÃ© :* lundi 3 fÃ©vrier 2020 12:25 *Ã :* 'Any question about pharo is welcome' *Objet :* Re: [Pharo-users] Dictionary removeKey: very low Pierre Itâs all to do with rehashing. A dictionary is stored as an Array of Association. After a key and its corresponding association is removed, the remaining entries are rehashed from the removal point to the end of the array. By doing the removals in natural order, you rehash the whole of the remaining array after each removal. Try doing the removals in reverse order; on my machine it reduces the time from 6 seconds to 6 milliseconds. HTH Peter Kenny *From:* Pharo-users <pharo-users-bounces(a)lists.pharo.org> *On Behalf Of *LABORDE Pierre *Sent:* 03 February 2020 10:18 *To:* pharo-users(a)lists.pharo.org *Subject:* [Pharo-users] Dictionary removeKey: very low Hi all, I have a problem with Dictionaries : *dic := Dictionary new: 10000.* *1 to: 10000 do:[ :i |* * dic at: i put: i printString.* *].* *1 to: 10000 do:[ :i |* * dic removeKey: i. * *]* Removing each keys is very slooow, time execution difference between add and remove is crazy. Any idea for fix that ? Can I use another Dictionary implementation or settings ? Thanks. Pierre

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by LABORDE Pierre

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

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by Lorenzo

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

Feb. 7, 2020

[FOSDEM] Grafoscopio

by Santiago Bragagnolo

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

Feb. 7, 2020

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

by Sean P. DeNigris

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

Feb. 7, 2020